Request for Leave to Intervene by Mike Webb — U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden (N.D. Tex., Doc. 143)

Summary

A request for leave to intervene filed May 2, 2022 as Document 143 in U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Joseph R. Biden, Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-01236-O, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Major Mike Webb, describing himself as a litigant and pro se advocate in Webb v. Fauci, Civil Action No. 3:2021-cv-00432, asks to intervene in the case brought against the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy. The request refers to his Freedom of Information Act claim concerning COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2. The filing is 39 pages and ends with its Priority Mail envelope.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors. Pages 23–26, 28–34, 37, and 39 of 39 are not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 1 of 39 PageID 4928
FILED
May 2, 2022
KAREN MITCHELL
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT
COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
U.S. NAVY SEALS 1-26, U.S. NAVY )
SPECIAL WARFARE COMBATANT )
CRAFT CREWMEN 1-5, U.S. NAVY )
EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL )
DISPOSAL TECHNICIAN, U.S. NAVY )
DIVERS 1-3 )
Plaintiffs, )
) Civil Action No. . 4:21-cv-01236-O
v. )
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, in his official capacity )
as President of the United States of )
America, LLOYD AUSTIN, )
SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF )
DEFENSE, individually and in his official )
capacity as United States Secretary of )
Defense, UNITED STATES )
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, CARLOS )
DEL TORO, individually and in his official )
capacity as UNITED STATES )
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY )
Defendants )
REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
1. And, comes now to the Court Major Mike Webb, a litigant and pro se advocate in Webb v.
Fauci, Civil Action No. 3:2021-cv-00432 (E.D.Va. 2021), on appeal Record No. 21-2394
(4th Cir. 2021); see also Webb v. Fauci, Record No. 21-6868 (U.S. 2022), arising from, inter
alia a claim brought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552,
regarding the classification of the infectious dose and/or secondary attack rate, standard
epidemiological metrics, for COVID-19, with credible evidence that the biological causative
agent, SARS-CoV-2, had not been zoonotically evolved, as repeatedly alleged by the
President’s top medical adviser, Anthony Fauci, see Jerry Dunleavy, “Fauci says he still
-1-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 2 of 39 PageID 4929
thinks nature, not Wuhan lab, ‘most likely’ origin for COVID-19,” Washington Examiner,
July 17, 2021; see also Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder, “Biden: Intelligence Community Must
‘Redouble’ Efforts to Find Coronavirus Origin,” U.S. News & World Report, May 26, 2021,
but rather is a biological agent in which the U.S. government holds a proprietary interest,
and, by operation of law, would have to have been cultivated in a laboratory. See Association
for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Docket No. 12-398, 566 U.S. ___ (2013);
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).
Conditions for Grant of Leave to Intervene
2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 24(a), “[o]n timely motion, the court must permit anyone to
intervene who: (1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (2)
claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and
is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the
movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that
interest, (emphasis added)
3. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 24(b), “[o]n timely motion, the court may permit anyone to
intervene who: (A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (B) has a
claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.
(emphasis added)
4. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 24(b)(3), “[i]n exercising its discretion, the court must consider
whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original
parties’ rights.”
5. “The Court must consider three factors to determine whether an application to intervene is
timely: (1) the stage of the proceedings; (2) the reason for any delay in moving to intervene;
-2-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 3 of 39 PageID 4930
and (3) whether the parties would be prejudiced.” ABM Indus. Inc., 249 F.R.D., at 588 (citing
Northwest Forest Resource Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825 (9th Cir.1996)).
6. Furthermore, “[a] motion to intervene must be served on the parties as provided in Rule 5”
and “[t]he motion must state the grounds for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading
that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.” Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 24(c).
Expert Testimony Qualification
7. In a recent application for a partial stay that had been presented to Justice Samuel Alito and
referred to the full U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh had concluded:
I concur in the Court’s decision to grant the Government’s application for a partial stay of
the District Court’s preliminary injunction for a simple overarching reason: Under Article
II of the Constitution, the President of the United States, not any federal judge, is the
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. In light of that bedrock constitutional
principle, “courts traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority of the
Executive in military and national security affairs.” Department of Navy v. Egan, 484
U.S. 518, 530 (1988). As the Court has long emphasized, moreover, the “complex, subtle,
and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a
military force are essentially professional military judgments.” Gilligan v. Morgan, 413
U.S. 1, 10 (1973). Therefore, it is “difficult to conceive of an area of governmental
activity in which the courts have less competence.” Ibid. Austin v. U.S. Navy SEALs 1-
26, Record No. 21A-477 (U.S., March 25, 2022),
8. However, under Fed.R.Evid. 702, “[a] witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge,
skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact
to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on
sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods;
and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.”
(emphasis added)
9. In a seminal case on vaccinations, this nation’s highest court stated, regarding that an
appellant, whose “views could not affect the validity of the statute, nor entitle him to be
-3-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 4 of 39 PageID 4931
excepted from its provisions”, 2 25 S. Ct. 358, 49 L. Ed. 643 (1905) (citing Commonwealth
v. Connelly, 163 Massachusetts 539; Commonwealth v. Has, 122 Massachusetts 40; Reynolds
v. United States, 98 U.S. 145; Regina v. Downes, 13 Cox C.C. 111.), that “[t]he only
‘competent evidence’ that could be presented to the court to prove these propositions was the
testimony of experts, giving their opinions.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Jacobson, 183
Massachusetts 242 (1904). See also Fed.R.Evid. 701¹.
10. Under the Fed.R.Evid. 901(a), “[t]o satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying
an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that
the item is what the proponent claims it is”, and, in accordance with Fed.R.Evid. 901(b)(1),
examples may include “[t]estimony that an item is what it is claimed to be”.
11. And, under Fed.R.Evid. 703, “[a]n expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case
that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed”, and, “[i]f experts in the
particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion
on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted”, “[b]ut if the facts
or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may disclose them to
the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially
outweighs their prejudicial effect.” (emphasis added)
12. Historically, even in one landmark case on the issue of civil rights, expert testimony was
dispositive in gaining a favorable outcome for the appellee. Staff, “Kenneth and Mamie
Clark Doll,” NPS, February 10, 2021, Kenneth and Mamie Clark Doll - Brown v. Board of
¹ “If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is:
(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to
determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the
scope of Rule 702.” Id.
-4-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 5 of 39 PageID 4932
Education National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov) (accessed September
8, 2021).
13. Moreover, under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26(a)(2)(A), “[i]n addition to the disclosures required by
Rule 26(a)(1), a party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any witness it may use
at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705.” Pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26(a)(2)(B), “[u]nless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this
disclosure must be accompanied by a written report—prepared and signed by the witness”,
for which purpose the present application serves.
14. However, “[o]rdinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are
prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative
(including the other party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent)”,
Fed.R.Civ.Pro.26(b)(3)(A), and “[a] party must make the initial disclosures at or within 14
days after the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. . .” Fed.R.Civ.Pro.26(a)(1)(C).
Curriculum Vitae of Intervenor
15. Intervenor is the petitioner and pro se litigant in multiple litigations brough against the
government response to the current public health crisis, to include:
a. Webb v. Northam, et al., Case Number CL20001624 (Alexandria Cir. 2020), on
appeal Record Number 210536 (Va. 2021), on petition for certiorari, Record No. 21-
____ (U.S. 2021) (first and longest surviving litigation against the lockdown orders in
the Commonwealth of Virginia);
b. In Re: Major Mike Webb, Case Number CL21001829 (Alexandria Cir. 2021), on
appeal Record No. TBD (Va. 2022) (petition for writ of mandamus to compel the
Commonwealth Attorney to charge the Sheriff for failure to perfect service of process
upon the Governor and Commonwealth Defendants);
-5-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 6 of 39 PageID 4933
c. Webb v. Wilson, Case Number CL21001769 (Alexandria Cir. 2021), on appeal Webb
v. Wilson, Record No. TBD (Va. 2021) (injunction action against PRIDE Month
Proclamation, encouraging gay men to party during a public health crisis);
d. Webb v. Northam, Civil Number Civil Action No. 3:20CV497 (E.D.Va. 2020), on
appeal Webb v. Northam , Record Number 20-1968 (4th Cir. 2020), certiorari denied,
Record No. 21-6170 (U.S. 2021) (first filed and longest surviving litigation brought
against the nonmedical grade facial coverings mandates in the Commonwealth of
Virginia);
e. Webb v. Fauci, et al., Civil Action No. 3:21CV432 (E.D.Va. 2021), on appeal Record
No. 21-2394 (4th Cir. 2021) (first action brought against the vaccines mandates in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and, in relevant part, an injunction action to compel the
White House to respond to a request for information submitted under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, regarding whether or not the infectious dose
and secondary attack rate for SARS-CoV-2 is classified information); and
f. Webb v. Fauci, Record No. 21-6868 (U.S. 2022) (application for prejudgment
decision to enjoin the White House from withholding documents requested under the
FOIA and to compel a summary judgment against Facebook, Inc. for violations of the
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act).
16. Intervenor is the most junior commissioned officer to have ever served as both the Aide de
Camp to the Commander, as in evidence at Exhibit A, as well as the Operations Officer for
all U.S. Army counterintelligence in the Continental United States (CONUS), as in evidence
at Exhibit B.
-6-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 7 of 39 PageID 4934
17. And, in these capacities, Intervenor had the unique opportunity to serve in a critical staff role
during the formation of the Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center (AFMIC), see
generally DODD 6420.1, Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center (AFMIC), September
30, 1996 , the precursor to the National Medical Intelligence Center (NMIC), see generally
DODI 6420.01, National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI), March 20, 2009,
incorporating Change 3, effective September 8, 2020, which was the subject of the ABC
News report, Josh Margolin & James Gordon Meek, “Intelligence report warned of
coronavirus crisis as early as November: Sources ‘Analysts concluded it could be a
cataclysmic event,’ a source said,” ABC News, April 8, 2020.
18. In addition, Intervenor served as a Company Commander in the U.S. Army Reserve, in
which capacity, during Annual Training, he had the responsibility for proper instruction of
initial entry for training (IET) soldiers on topics to include proper tactics, techniques and
procedures for conduct of operations in environments contaminated by biological agents, and
was responsible during monthly unit training assemblies (UTAs) for conducting sustainment
training for drill instructors and other soldiers assigned to that training unit, as in evidence at
Exhibit C.
19. Intervenor further has been certified as an instructor in a train-the-trainer (T3) course for
composite risk management (CRM), in accordance with DA Pam 385-30 Safety: Risk
Management, Para 1-8, December 2, 2014.
20. In addition, Intervenor has been creditable experience as a FOIA analyst, having performed
such other duties as assigned, while serving in both the capacities of Aide de Camp and
Operations Officer, as well as while serving as the Adjutant/S1 for a basic training unit,
while in the U.S. Army Reserve, as in evidence at Exhibit D, as well as in employment as a
-7-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 8 of 39 PageID 4935
FOIA analyst with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and as a government
contractor, serving as the Acting FOIA Supervisor with Axiom Corporation of Atlanta, a
contracted agent for the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC).
21. Intervenor has provided paralegal support to intellectual property cases specifically involving
pharmaceutical products with premier law firms, to include: Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper &
Scinto, Whitman, Breed, Abbott & Morgan, LLC, Dilworth Paxson LLP, Blank Rome LLP
and Reed Smith LLP.
22. Intervenor has never authored any publications, nor testified as an expert, and is not being
compensated.
Stage of the Proceedings
23. On March 25, 2022, on application for relief from a partial stay, the Supreme Court had, with
a verbal indication that Justice Clarence Thomas would have denied the application, Justice
Kavanaugh concurred “in the Court’s decision to grant the Government’s application for a
partial stay of the District Court’s preliminary injunction.” U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26, Record
No. 21A-477.
24. The action, U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, 4:21-cv-01236 (N.D. Tx. 2021) was commenced
on November 9, 2021, followed by a Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief on November
24, 2021, prompting a Motion for Stay filed by Defendants, with Preliminary Injunctive
Relief granted by the District Court on January 3, 2022, prompting a Motion to Dismiss, filed
by Austin, on January 14, 2022, as well as a Notice for Interlocutory Appeal filed on January
21, 2022, and a Notice of Appeal on February 22, 2022.
25. An Amended Complaint was filed on January 24, 2022, followed by a Motion for Class
Certification on January 25, 2022.
-8-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 9 of 39 PageID 4936
26. On February 7, 2022, a Motion for Injunction Classwide Preliminary Injunction was filed
with the District Court, while Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
27. On March 28, 2022, an order was entered granting, in part, the Motion for Class Certification
and granting, in part, the Motion for Injunctive Relief.
28. On January 21, 2022, Defendants’ interlocutory was filed with the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeal, in the matter, U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, No. 22-10077 (5th Cir. 2022).
29. On February 28, 2022, the Fifth Circuit entered an order denying Motion for Stay Pending
Appeal.
Reason for Any Delay in Moving to Intervene
30. On March 5, 2021, the White House announced that “we’ve recovered from a storm, kept
vaccination sites open late, packed and shipped vaccines throughout the night, seen
companies across America make major commitments to masking and vaccinations and to
underserved communities”, that “we went from a J&J authorization to shots in arms in three
days[,]. . . topped off by an announcement from two rival drug companies, Johnson &
Johnson and Merck, of an unprecedented collaboration to increase our vaccination capacity
along with the U.S. government”, that “[w]e have increased vaccine supply to states, tribes,
and territories by more than 77 percent, launched programs to get vaccines into thousands of
additional convenient and trusted locations, like pharmacies, community vaccination centers,
and community health centers” and that “there are thousands of Americans — from our
military servicemen and women, to retired doctors and nurses, to members of the National
Guard — all vaccinating Americans across the country.” Briefing Room, “Press Briefing by
White House COVID-19 Response Team and Public Health Officials,” White House, March
5, 2021.
-9-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 10 of 39 PageID 4937
31. At a time during the public health crisis when it was reported that the “CDC’s most recent
data shows cases continue to fluctuate around 60,000 to 70,000 cases per day, with the most
recent seven-day average of 62,000 cases per day”, with “deaths hovering around 2,000
deaths per day with the latest seven-day average of 1,900 deaths per day”, the White House
took great pride in the fact reported that:
Six weeks ago, only 8 percent of seniors — those most vulnerable to COVID — had
received a vaccination. Today, nearly 55 percent of people age 65 or older have received
at least one shot. Altogether, we’ve administered more than 82 million shots — more
than any country in the world. And we’ve opened or expanded more than 450 community
vaccination sites. Id.
32. By March 7, 2021, the day upon which a joint project between Boston University and The
Atlantic had discontinued collecting data, a total of 515,151 American fatalities, confirmed
and probable, had been attributed to COVID-19. The COVID Tracking Project, “National
Data: Deaths,” COVID Tracking Project, March 7, 2021,
https://covidtracking.com/data/national/deaths (accessed March 31, 2022).
33. Days later, marking the anniversary of the declaration of a pandemic, the President,
indicating that Americans wanted to hear the truth, announced his American Rescue Plan,
stating:
I know it’s been hard. I truly know. As I've told you before, I carry a card in my pocket
with the number of Americans who have died from COVID to date. It’s on the back of
my schedule. As of now, total deaths in America, 527,726. That's more deaths than in
World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War and 9/11 combined. ABC News,
“Transcript: Joe Biden delivers remarks on 1-year anniversary of pandemic,” ABC News,
March 11, 2021.
34. “’Information’ means any knowledge that can be communicated or documentary material,
regardless of its physical form or characteristics, that is owned by, produced by or for, or is
under the control of the United States Government.” Part I, Section 1.1(b), Executive Order
12,958, Classified National Security Information, April 17, 1995. (emphasis added)
-10-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 11 of 39 PageID 4938
35. “‘Information’ means may information or material, regardless of its physical form or
characteristics, that is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United
States Government.” Section 6.1(b), Executive Order No. 12,356, National Security
Information, April 2, 1982. (emphasis added)
36. If this information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United
States government, despite reports to the contrary, by simple operation of law, as a product
not of nature, it would, of necessity, have to have been cultivated in a laboratory. Association
for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Docket No. 12-398, 566 U.S. ___ (2013);
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).
37. On March 23, 2021, as in evidence at Exhibit E, the Intervenor had presented a request for
information, under the authority of the FOIA to request any and all documents pertaining to
whether the secondary attack rate and/or the infectious dose for COVID-19, standard
epidemiological metrics of risk, were classified information, a request acknowledged as
received by the White House on that very same day, as in evidence at Exhibit F.
38. Celebrating his first 100 days after Joe Biden had assumed the office of the Presidency, the
White House took credit for “consistently vaccinating 2.5 million Americans per day”, “200
million shots in the first 100 days,” and had identified the most vulnerable populations
thusly:
As of today, 71 percent of individuals 65 and over have received at least one shot. That’s
important because seniors sadly account for 80 percent of COVID deaths. Overall, more
than 1 in 3 adults have had at least one dose, and more than 47 million adult Americans
are now fully vaccinated. Briefing Room, “Press Briefing by White House COVID-19
Response Team and Public Health Officials,” White House, March 26, 2021.
39. After the tolling of the deadline for a response to the FOIA request, with urgency, to task the
Intelligence Community to redouble efforts one month after the deadline had tolled for a
-11-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 12 of 39 PageID 4939
response. See Kate Sullivan, Donald Judd and Phil Mattingly, Biden tasks intelligence
community to report on Covid origins in 90 days, CNN, May 27, 2021.
40. It is generally acknowledged that Reid v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 508 F.3d 674
(Fed. Cir. 2007) articulates a timing/knowledge test to determine whether conduct is
retaliatory, and the complainant need only demonstrate that “the deciding official knew of the
[protected activity]. . . and that the adverse action was initiated within a reasonable time² of
[the same]”.
41. Under the timing/knowledge test, a complainant “need not demonstrate the existence of a
retaliatory motive. . . to establish that [the protected activity]... was a contributing factor”,
Kewley v. HHS, 153 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Marano v. DoJ, 2 F.3d 1137(Fed.
Cir. 1993)), and “[o]nce the knowledge/timing test has been met, an administrative judge
must find that the appellant has shown that. . . [the protected activity] was a contributing
factor... , even if, after a complete analysis of all of the evidence, a reasonable factfinder
could not conclude that the appellant’s [protected activity]... was a contributing factor”.
Schnell v. Department of the Army, 114 M.S.P.R. 83 (2010).
42. Defendants had brought a complaint, like the Intervenor, who had initially filed his case on
July 7, 2021, including claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Pub. L. No.
103-141, 107 Stat. 1488, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, which Congress had enacted to:
“(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398
(1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all
cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and (2) to provide a claim or
² See Inman v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 112 M.S.P.R. 280 (2009) (a reasonable time of 15 months);
Redschlag v. Department of the Army, 89 M.S.P.R. 589 (2001) (a reasonable time of 18 months); Russell v. DoJ, 76
M.S.P.R. 317 (1997) (a reasonable time of 7 months); Easterbrook v. DoJ, 85 M.S.P.R. 60 (2000) (a reasonable time
of 7 months).
-12-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 13 of 39 PageID 4940
defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.”
(emphasis added)
43. Piercing the veil of judicial immunity, being act ministerial and not judicial in nature, in
derogation of a substantive right to due process and equal protection, unlike in the case
brought by Plaintiffs, where, by November 9, 2021, a summons was issued against all
Defendants, to date, in the case brought by the Intervenor in the Eastern District of Virginia,
no summons has yet been issued, raising a reasonable suspicion regarding violations of 18
U.S.C. § 1512, for conspiracy to evade a summons.
44. Similarly, piercing the veil of judicial immunity, being act ministerial and not judicial in
nature, in derogation of a substantive right to due process and equal protection, unlike in the
case brought by Plaintiffs, where a hearing was docketed for argument regarding injunctive
relief, in the matter brought by the Intervenor, the Trial Court had refused to docket a hearing
under the pretext that the Respondents in his case had not been served.
45. Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i), “[a]ny person making a request to any agency for records
under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection shall be deemed to have exhausted his
administrative remedies with respect to such request if the agency fails to comply with the
applicable time limit provisions of this paragraph”, and “[o]n complaint, the district court of
the United States in the district in which the complainant resides, or has his principal place of
business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia, has
jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the
production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant”, 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(4)(B); so, the Court, sua sponte, at all times possessed the authority, at its discretion,
-13-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 14 of 39 PageID 4941
to grant injunctive relief, which never occurred, again piercing the veil of judicial immunity,
in derogation of a substantive right to due process and equal protection.
46. Moreover, on October 29, 2021, it was reported that “[t]he US intelligence community
released a declassified report. . . that confirmed that it has not reached a conclusion on the
origins of Covid-19, though it offered fresh details on how the intelligence community
approached its 90-day investigation into the matter”, Katie Bo Lillis, “US Intelligence
community releases full declassified report that does not determine origin of Covid-19,”
CNN, October 29, 2021, the very same day that the Trial Court had issued an order
dismissing the action, for dubious reasons, an order that has yet to have been delivered to the
Intervenor in the mail.
47. After discovering the dismissal action during a visit to the Court to redouble efforts to have a
summons issued by the Trial Court, the Intervenor promptly, filed a notice of appeal, filed an
appeal of the dismissal with the Fourth Circuit and filed an application for prejudgment
injunctive relief on the FOIA claim with the Supreme Court, the last action of which was
denied certiorari on March 7, 2022, with Justice Samuel Alito abstaining from participation,
while the appeal filed with the Fourth Circuit has languished since its filing in December,
even without any responsive replies from the Appellee parties.
48. “Globally, as of 5:04pm CEST, 30 March 2022, there have been 483,556,595 confirmed
cases of COVID-19, including 6,132,461 deaths, reported to WHO”, Staff, “WHO
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard,” WHO, https://covid19.who.int/ (accessed March 31,
2022), and on March 8, 2021, the Intervenor filed a formal complaint, alleging crimes against
humanity and genocide, with the International Criminal Court, as in evidence at Exhibit G.
-14-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 15 of 39 PageID 4942
But see Matthew Lee, “US formally declares Russian troops have committed war crimes in
Ukraine,” Associated Press, March 23, 2022.
49. To date, 976,229 American deaths have been attributed to a biological agent that, beyond a
reasonable doubt, is the property of the Government, while 81.8% of Americans over the age
of five have been administered at least one dose, based upon the misrepresentation of a
material fact that these countermeasure products were designed to address a disease that had
occurred in nature, false representations knowingly made, with intent to mislead, placing the
American people in false reliance thereon, establishing a prima facie case of fraud.
50. It is clear that, under federal laws of the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a),
Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the
jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the
United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or
representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any
materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves
international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more
than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110,
or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall
be not more than 8 years.
51. It is clear that, under the laws of the Commmonwealth,
A party alleging fraud must prove by clear and convincing evidence (1) a false
representation, (2) of a material fact, (3) made intentionally and knowingly, (4) with
intent to mislead, (5) reliance by the party misled, and (6) resulting damage to him. Winn
v. Aleda Constr. Co., 227 Va. 304, 308, 315 S.E.2d 193, 195 (1984). Clear and
convincing evidence is such proof as will establish in the trier of fact a firm belief or
conviction concerning the allegations that must be established.” Thompson v. Bacon, 245
Va. 107 (1993) (quoting Walker Agency, Inc. v. Lucas, 215 Va. 535 (1975).
-15-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 16 of 39 PageID 4943
52. And, it is clear, on the record, that public officials, elected and appointed had engaged in
conduct of such character and had ample cause to evade a court that might hold them
accountable for their actions, finding sufficient motive, means and opportunity. Bowen v.
Maynard, 799 F.2d 593 (10th Cir.1986) (“Additionally, there was no evidence that “Slick,”
unlike Crowe, had motive, opportunity, and ability to kill the bartender.”).
Prejudice to Parties
Military Law
53. “On October 17, 2006, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was amended to extend
UCMJ jurisdiction over persons serving with or accompanying U.S. armed forces in the field
in times of declared war or a contingency operation (references (a) and (b)).” Robert M.
Gates, Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Under Secretaries of Defense and Commanders of Combatant Commands,
“UCMJ Jurisdiction Over DoD Civilian Employees, DoD Contractor Personnel, and Other
Persons Serving With or Accompanying the Armed Forces Overseas During Declared War
and in Contingency Operations,” DOD, March 10, 2008.
54. Under military law, codified in the Uniform Code for Military Justice (UCMJ),
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a preliminary hearing shall be held before
referral of charges and specifications for trial by general court-martial. The preliminary
hearing shall be conducted by an impartial hearing officer, detailed by the convening
authority in accordance with subsection (b).
(B) Under regulations prescribed by the President, a preliminary hearing need not be held
if the accused submits a written waiver to the convening authority and the convening
authority determines that a hearing is not required. 10 U.S.C. § 832(a)(1).
55. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 832(a)(2),
The purpose of the preliminary hearing shall be limited to determining the following:
(A)Whether or not the specification alleges an offense under this chapter.
-16-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 17 of 39 PageID 4944
(B) Whether or not there is probable cause to believe that the accused committed
the offense charged.
(C) Whether or not the convening authority has court-martial jurisdiction over the
accused and over the offense.
(D) A recommendation as to the disposition that should be made of the case.
Transnational Terror
56. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(d)(1), “[t]he prosecution is not required to prove knowledge by any
defendant of a jurisdictional base alleged in the indictment”, and, in electing a right to remain
silent, at least with regards to criminal conduct involving terrorism, “[a] person acts with the
requisite knowledge if he is aware of (or willfully blinds himself to) a significant likelihood
that his or her conduct will materially support the organization’s terrorist ends”, Holder v.
Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010), and, under Fed.R.Crim.Pro. 6(a), “[w]hen the
public interest so requires, the court must order that one or more grand juries be summoned.”
57. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(a)(1)(A), “[w]hoever, involving conduct transcending national
boundaries and in a circumstance described in subsection (b). . . kills, kidnaps, maims,
commits an assault resulting in serious bodily injury, or assaults with a dangerous weapon
any person within the United States. . . in violation of the laws of any State, or the United
States, shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c)”, which provides, in relevant part,
that “[w]hoever violates this section shall be punished. . . for a killing, or if death results to
any person from any other conduct prohibited by this section, by death, or by imprisonment
for any term of years or for life”, 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(c)(1)(A).
58. However, under 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(b)(1)(C), for jurisdictional purposes, “the victim, or
intended victim, is the United States Government, a member of the uniformed services, or
any official, officer, employee, or agent of the legislative, executive, or judicial branches, or
-17-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 18 of 39 PageID 4945
of any department or agency, of the United States” (emphasis added), and, to date, a total of
94 uniformed service members have been fatalities to COVID-19. Staff, “Spotlight:
Coronavirus: DoD Response,” https://www.defense.gov/Spotlights/Coronavirus-DOD-
Response/ (accessed March 30, 2022).
59. At least in the Sixth Circuit, where it was found that, where “the object crimes alleged. . .
were part of a broader conspiracy ‘intended to promote’ enumerated crimes of terrorism”, it
has been held that “[t]he terrorism enhancement applies no matter which object crimes were
assumed in the guilty verdict, so there is no need to determine beyond a reasonable doubt
that. . .[a defendant or defendants] conspired to commit any one of the named object crimes
in particular.” U.S. v. Graham, 275 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2001). Similarly, the Seventh Circuit
has held that,“[i]f the act is among the litany of crimes listed in § 2332b(g)(5)(B), which
include a bevy of the most harmful and odious acts in the criminal code, including everything
from murder and torture to the destruction of government property, and it was ‘calculated to
influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate
against government conduct,’ then it is a federal crime of terrorism”, U.S. v. Christianson,
586 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting 18 § 2332b(g)(5)(B)), “[a]nd for all intents and
purposes at sentencing, that person is a terrorist. Id.
A Right to Be Heard
60. The Virginia State Attorney General has described in pleadings the current public health
crisis as a “a once-in-a-century pandemic”, characterized as “threaten[ing] irreparable harm
to an unknown (and unknowable) number of people”, and prompting the argument that “the
scope of [a court’s] review . . . must be limited to a determination of whether the
[executive’s] actions were taken in good faith and whether there is some factual basis for [the
-18-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 19 of 39 PageID 4946
Governor’s] decision that the restrictions he imposed were necessary to maintain order.”
Opp. Brief, Hughes v. Northam, Civil Action No. CL20-415 (Russell Cy. Cir.) (quoting U.S.
v. Chalk, 441 F.2d 1277 (4th Cir. 1971).
61. The esteemed Attorney General, however, appears to suggest that such license is plenary, and
eternal, and appears to omit the bounds upon that license even acknowledged by that
precedential authority, which expressly articulated the condition that “’[a]ll power may be
abused if placed in unworthy hands’”, id. (quoting Luther, 48 U.S. (7 How.), at 1, and that
“[t]he courts cannot prevent abuse of power, but can sometimes correct it”. Id.
62. Yet, while neither a practicing nor licensed, nor even formally trained, litigator, Intervenor is
yet aware that “[t]he fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be
heard”, Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 (1914), and that such should occur “at a meaningful
time and in a meaningful manner”, Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965).
63. Similarly, this unrepresented litigant is fully aware that, in due process, not derogated, is
defined as “the process that is due under particular circumstances and does not invariably
mandate trial-type proceedings”, Sec’y of Labor v. T.P. Mining, Inc., 8 FMSHRC 687 (1986),
which at least one case within the confines of his federal jurisdiction had described as a
substantive right derogated in irreparable harm, Cohen v. Rosenstein, 691 F. App’x 728,
(Mem)—730 (4th Cir. 2017), a material finding for a grant of injunctive relief upon
infringement thereof, a legal cause of action even recognized, even if in dissent, by the
Virginia State Attorney General. See Opp. Brief, Hughes v. Northam, supra. (quoting School
Bd. of Richmond v. Wilder, 73 Va. Cir. 251 (City of Richmond Cir. Ct. 2007))³.
³ “[a] party seeking injunctive relief ‘must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely
to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and
[4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id.
-19-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 20 of 39 PageID 4947
Speedy Trial
64. It is clear that “courts must ‘recognize that excessive delay presumptively compromises the
reliability of a trial in ways that neither party can prove or, for that matter, identify’”, U.S. v.
Knowles, 390 F. App’x 915 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514
(1972)), and a defendant “cannot avoid a speedy trial by forcing the government to run the
gauntlet of obtaining formal extradition and then complain about the delay that he has caused
by refusing to return voluntarily to the United States”, because “affirmative resistance of the
government’s efforts to secure his presence in the United States constitute an intentional
relinquishment of his right to a constitutional speedy trial”; hence, precluding a right to then
“complain of the delay that he himself caused”. U.S. v. Manning, 56 F.3d 1188 (9th
Cir.1995).
65. In the analysis of a denial of speedy trial, under the Sixth Amendment, “[t]he length of the
delay is the starting point of the analysis, and it is not necessary to consider the other three
factors if the delay is not presumptively prejudicial”, and “[t]he length of delay is not
presumptively prejudicial”. Bland v. Commonwealth, No. 0937-16-1, 2017 WL 5318340, at
*1–4 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2017) (citing Barker, 407 U.S., at 514.). But see Doggett v. U.S.,
505 U.S. 647 (1992) (“Simply to trigger a speedy trial analysis, an accused must allege that
the interval between accusation and trial has crossed the threshold dividing ordinary from
‘presumptively prejudicial’ delay, 407 U.S., at 530-531, 92 S.Ct., at 2192, since, by
definition, he cannot complain that the government has denied him a ‘speedy’ trial if it has,
in fact, prosecuted his case with customary promptness.”).
66. In U.S. v. Cain, 671 F.3d 271 (2d Cir. 2012), the Court explained:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33
L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) sets forth the four factors that must be considered in analyzing
-20-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 21 of 39 PageID 4948
whether a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated: (1) the
length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) whether the defendant asserted his
right in the run-up to the trial; and (4) whether the defendant was prejudiced by the
failure to bring the case to trial more quickly. See id. at 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182; see also
United States v. Jones, 129 F.3d 718, 724 (2d Cir.1997). These factors “must be
considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant,” and “have no
talismanic qualities.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 533, 92 S.Ct. 2182. Rather, they require courts
to “engage in a difficult and sensitive balancing process.” Id.
67. It is well-established that “by definition, [a defendant] cannot complain that the government
has denied him a ‘speedy’ trial if it has, in fact, prosecuted his case with customary
promptness” Doggett v. U.S., 505 U.S. 647 (1992), and while “a showing of prejudice is not
a prerequisite to finding a [S]ixth [A]mendment violation, courts generally have been
reluctant to find a speedy trial violation in the absence of genuine prejudice.” U.S. v. Jones,
Jones, 129 F.3d 718 (2d Cir.1997).
Unconditional Right by Statute
68. Under the FOIA, as noted above, “Any person making a request to any agency for records
under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection shall be deemed to have exhausted his
administrative remedies with respect to such request if the agency fails to comply with the
applicable time limit provisions of this paragraph.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).
69. Moreover, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a), “[o]n timely motion, the court must permit anyone
to intervene who: (1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action,
and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the
movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that
interest”, statutory substantive rights, in derogation of equal protection and due process, that
have thus far been denied, an irreparable harm, see Cohen v. Rosenstein, 691 F. App’x 728,
-21-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 22 of 39 PageID 4949
(Mem)-730 (4th Cir. 2017), entitled to injunctive relief. School Bd. of Richmond v. Wilder,
73 Va. Cir. 251 (City of Richmond Cir. Ct. 2007).
70. Additionally, in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 24(b)(1), “[o]n timely motion, the court may
permit anyone to intervene who: (A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal
statute; or (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of
law or fact.”
Claim that Shares with the Main Action
71. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 24(b), “[o]n timely motion, the court may permit anyone to
intervene who: (A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (B) has a
claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.
(emphasis added)
72. If, even in equity and within the inherent powers of the court to ensure the administration of
justice an unconditional right to intervene were not found, clearly, upon the similar facts and
similar defendants, a Court could not fail to find a common claim with the main action,
making a grant of intervention in this case proper.
Conclusion, Certification and Verification
73. All the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge, and I understand that a false
statement in this Verified Complaint may subject me to penalties of perjury.
74. Intervenor agrees to provide the Clerk’s Office with any changes to my address where case-
related papers may be served.
75. Intervenor understands that his failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk’s
Office may result in the dismissal of his case.
76. Intervenor further declares under penalty of perjury that no attorney has prepared, or assisted
in the preparation of this document.
-22-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 23 of 39 PageID 4950
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays, for the reasons argued above, for a grant of relief in the
form of intervention in the above referenced matter, and such other equitable relief as
deemed proper by the Court.
[signature]
Major Mike Webb
955 S. Columbus Street, #426
Arlington, Virginia 22204
Phone: (856) 220-1354
Email: GiveFaithATry@gmail.com
Executed on: 4-28-22 (Date)
Subscribed, acknowledged and sworn to before me, the undersigned Notary Public in the
County of Arlington, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, this
28 day of April, 20 22.
[signature]
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires: 06/30/2025 Registration Number: 79[illegible]
[seal: MISHEL E TIPAN, NOTARY PUBLIC, REG. #[illegible], MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 06/30/2025, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA]
-23-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 24 of 39 PageID 4951
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A
[form: officer evaluation report; small-print field labels partly legible]
a. LAST NAME - FIRST NAME - MIDDLE INITIAL: WEBB, MICHAEL D.
[label illegible]: 2LT [label illegible] (Year Month Day): 94 04 14 [label illegible]: MI SPECIALTIES: 35D00
UNIT, ORGANIZATION, STATION, ZIP CODE OR APO, MAJOR COMMAND: HHC, 902D MI Group, Fort Meade, MD 20755-5935 USAINSCOM
REASON FOR SUBMISSION: 03 Change of Rater CMD CODE: AS
PERIOD COVERED FROM (Year Month Day): 94 12 13 THRU (Year Month Day): 95 06 27
NO. OF MONTHS: 7 MILPO CODE: MD13
RATED OFFICER COPY (Check one and date): [ ] 1. GIVEN TO OFFICER [ ] 2. FORWARDED TO OFFICER
FORWARDING ADDRESS:
EXPLANATION OF NONRATED PERIODS:
PART II - AUTHENTICATION (Rated officer signature verifies PART I data and RATING [obscured by signature])
a. NAME OF RATER (Last, First, MI): STURMER, RONALD T. SSN: SIGNATURE: [ ] [signature]
GRADE, BRANCH, ORGANIZATION, DUTY ASSIGNMENT: LTC, MI, 902D MI Group, Fort Meade, MD 20755 Deputy Commander DATE: 5 Jul 95
b. NAME OF INTERMEDIATE RATER (Last, First, MI): SSN: SIGNATURE: [ ]
GRADE, BRANCH, ORGANIZATION, DUTY ASSIGNMENT: DATE:
c. NAME OF SENIOR RATER (Last, First, MI): SWIFT, JOHN E. III SSN: SIGNATURE: [ ] [signature]
GRADE, BRANCH, ORGANIZATION, DUTY ASSIGNMENT: COL, MI, 902D MI Group, Fort Meade, MD 20755-5[illegible]10 Group Commander DATE: 5 Jul 95
d. SIGNATURE OF RATED OFFICER: [signature] DATE: 5 Jul 95
e. DATE ENTERED ON DA FORM 2-1: f. RATED OFFICER MPO INITIALS: g. SR MPO INITIALS: h. NO. OF INCL:
PART III - DUTY DESCRIPTION (Rater)
a. PRINCIPAL DUTY TITLE: GROUP EXECUTIVE OFFICER b. SSI/MOS: 35E
c. REFER TO PART IIIa, DA FORM 67-8-1
Executive Officer to commander of a CDPL Colonel-level Military Intelligence Group.
Functions include staff action control and coordination, and supervision of command group
activities. Ensures the Group Comander stays advised of all actions that affect the Group
mission. Keeps the Deputy Commander and primary staff informed of all matters pertaining to
their respective areas. Responsible for ensuring the management information systems, and
other time saving techniques. Supports subordinate commander through transfer of informatio[edge cut]
on Group activities and decisions.
PART IV - PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - PROFESSIONALISM (Rater)
a. PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE (In items 1 through 14 below, indicate the degree of agreement with the following statements as being descriptive of the rated officer. Any comments will be reflected in b below.) HIGH DEGREE 1 2 3 4 5 LOW DEGREE
1. Possesses capacity to acquire knowledge/grasp concepts 1
2. Demonstrates appropriate knowledge and expertise in assigned tasks 1
3. Maintains appropriate level of physical fitness PASS 9505 1
4. Motivates, challenges and develops subordinates 1
5. Performs under physical and mental stress 1
6. Encourages candor and frankness in subordinates 1
7. Clear and concise in written communication 1
8. Displays sound judgment 1
9. Seeks self-improvement 1
10. Is adaptable to changing situations 1
11. Sets and enforces high standards 1
12. Possesses military bearing and appearance 69/168 YES 1
13. Supports EO/EEO 1
14. Clear and concise in oral communication 1
b. PROFESSIONAL ETHICS (Comment on any area where the rated officer is particularly outstanding or needs improvement)
1. DEDICATION 2. RESPONSIBILITY 3. LOYALTY 4. DISCIPLINE 5. INTEGRITY 6. MORAL COURAGE 7. SELFLESSNESS 8. MORAL STANDARDS
a.1 & 2: A fast learner; aggressively seeks new and better ways to accomplish
the mission.
a.3: Superb physical condition; runs marathons.
a.10: Remains flexible at all times; easily adapts to changing guidance.
b.1, 3 & 7: An exceptionally dedicated officer; gives 100 percent effort on
every task regardless of personal concerns.
[circular stamp at left margin, illegible] [vertical stamp at right margin, illegible]
-24-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 25 of 39 PageID 4952
[form heading cut at top edge]
a. RATED OFFICER'S NAME: WEBB, MICHAEL D. SSN:
RATED OFFICER IS ASSIGNED IN ONE OF HIS/HER DESIGNATED SPECIALTIES/MOS [X] YES [ ] NO
b. PERFORMANCE DURING THIS RATING PERIOD. REFER TO PART III, DA FORM 67-8 AND PART IIIa, b, AND c, DA FORM 67-8-1
[X] ALWAYS EXCEEDED REQUIREMENTS [ ] USUALLY EXCEEDED REQUIREMENTS [ ] MET REQUIREMENTS [ ] OFTEN FAILED REQUIREMENTS [ ] USUALLY FAILED REQUIREMENTS
c. COMMENT ON SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE PERFORMANCE. REFER TO PART III, DA FORM 67-8 AND PART IIIa, b, AND c, DA FORM 67-8-1. DO NOT USE FOR COMMENTS ON POTENTIAL!
2LT Webb has accomplished his mission in an outstanding manner. He was given full
responsibility for executing all the administrative requirements for the 902D MI Group's
organizational inspection program and has ensured that all inspection schedules are
thoroughly coordinated and deconflicted from all other activities and inspection results are
accurately compiled. As the linchpin to the efficiency and effectiveness of the Command
Group, his demeanor and ability to anticipate requirements were essential in optimizing the
commander's time and expediting staff actions. He has been totally reliable in all aspects
of his job and has willingly put in an inordinate amount of hours to ensure that every detail
of an action is taken care of. 2LT Webb's ability to establish immediate rapport with senior
personnel and agencies has significantly improved the professional image of the Group. A
solid effort by an exceptional officer.
d. THIS OFFICER'S POTENTIAL FOR PROMOTION TO THE NEXT HIGHER GRADE IS
[X] PROMOTE AHEAD OF CONTEMPORARIES [ ] PROMOTE WITH CONTEMPORARIES [ ] DO NOT PROMOTE [ ] OTHER (Explain below)
e. COMMENT ON POTENTIAL
Outstanding potential; he has the intelligence and determination to make
things happen. He should be assigned as a battalion S-2 and company XO in preparation for
command. Promote immediately and select for the MI Advanced Course.
PART VI - INTERMEDIATE RATER
a. COMMENTS
PART VII - SENIOR RATER
a. POTENTIAL EVALUATION (See Chapter 4, AR [illegible]) SR [X] in the top (HI) box of the scale; HI ... LO; DA USE ONLY [blank]
b. COMMENTS
2LT Webb has done an outstanding job. He has truly become my
right hand, enthusiasticly handling a myriad of actions. A
less energetic and dedicated officer would flounder under the
work load I have placed on him. Because of him, the mission o[edge cut]
this command in not impeded by unnecessary distractions. He
could serve as a company commander now. Likewise, he has the
organizational ability and interpersonal skills necessary for
excellence at higher staff levels. Select for battalion S-2,
promote immediately and select for MI Advanced Course.
Mike Webb is a strong officer; a leader for the 21st Century
Army.
-25-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 26 of 39 PageID 4953
Exhibit B
[form: officer evaluation report; PART I heading cut by the exhibit label]
a. LAST NAME - FIRST NAME - MIDDLE INITIAL: WEBB, MICHAEL D. b. SSN: c. GRADE: ILT d. DATE OF RANK (Year Month Day): 96 04 14 e. BR: MI f. DESIGNATED SPECIALTIES: 35D g. PMOS (WO): h. STA CODE:
i. UNIT, ORGANIZATION, STATION, ZIP CODE OR APO, MAJOR COMMAND: HHD, 902D MI GROUP, FORT MEADE, MD 2[illegible]755-5910 USAINSCOM
j. REASON FOR SUBMISSION: 04 DISCHARGE k. CMD CODE: AS
l. PERIOD COVERED FROM (Year Month Day): 96 07 01 THRU (Year Month Day): 97 04 15
m. NO. OF MONTHS: 09 n. MILPO CODE: MD13
o. RATED OFFICER COPY (Check one and date): [ ] 1. GIVEN TO OFFICER [X] 2. FORWARDED TO OFFICER [handwritten: 97[illegible]414]
p. FORWARDING ADDRESS:
q. EXPLANATION OF NONRATED PERIODS:
PART II - AUTHENTICATION (Rated officer signature verifies PART I data and RATING OFFICIALS ONLY)
a. NAME OF RATER (Last, First, MI): LINE, BRYON S. SSN: SIGNATURE: [ ] [signature]
GRADE, BRANCH, ORGANIZATION, DUTY ASSIGNMENT: GS-14, HHD, [illegible]02D MI GROUP, FORT MEADE, MD 20755-591[illegible], DIR OF OPS DATE: [handwritten: 97[illegible]415]
b. NAME OF INTERMEDIATE RATER (Last, First, MI): SSN: SIGNATURE: [ ]
GRADE, BRANCH, ORGANIZATION, DUTY ASSIGNMENT: DATE:
c. NAME OF SENIOR RATER (Last, First, MI): SIMMONS, MICHAEL A. SSN: SIGNATURE: [ ] [signature]
GRADE, BRANCH, ORGANIZATION, DUTY ASSIGNMENT: [struck through: LTC] [handwritten: 05], MI, HHD, 902D MI GROUP, FORT MEADE, MD 20755-5910, GROUP S3 DATE: [handwritten: 970415]
d. SIGNATURE OF RATED OFFICER: [signature] DATE: [handwritten: 970414]
e. DATE ENTERED ON DA FORM 2-1: f. RATED OFFICER MPO INITIALS: [handwritten initials] g. SR MPO INITIALS: h. NO. OF INCL: [handwritten mark, illegible]
PART III - DUTY DESCRIPTION (Rater)
a. PRINCIPAL DUTY TITLE: Operations Officer b. SSI/MOS: 35D
c. REFER TO PART IIIa, DA FORM 67-8-1
Operations Officer for the 902d Military Intelligence Group. Assists in planning, development, prioritizing and
managing current operations for a Counterintelligence Group comprised of four battalions and 42 detachments
throughout CONUS. Responsible for the Oversight and Group level management of all Red Teams.
Coordinates Group operations with INSCOM and other MACOM operations offices. Coordinates mission
execution by task organizing Group assets and monitoring implementation until complete. Prepares and presents
weekly operational updates to the Group Commander and his staff. Coordinate, oversee and maintain a database
of approximately 350 annually.
PART IV - PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - PROFESSIONALISM (Rater)
a. PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE (In items 1 through 14 below, indicate the degree of agreement with the following statements as being descriptive of the rated officer. Any comments will be reflected in b below.) HIGH DEGREE 1 2 3 4 5 LOW DEGREE
1. Possesses capacity to acquire knowledge/grasp concepts 1
2. Demonstrates appropriate knowledge and expertise in assigned tasks 1
3. Maintains appropriate level of physical fitness PASS 9610 1
4. Motivates, challenges and develops subordinates 1
5. Performs under physical and mental stress 1
6. Encourages candor and frankness in subordinates 1
7. Clear and concise in written communication 1
8. Displays sound judgement 1
9. Seeks self-improvement 1
10. Is adaptable to changing situations 1
11. Sets and enforces high standards 1
12. Possesses military bearing and appearance 69/172 YES 1
13. Supports EO/EEO 1
14. Clear and concise in oral communication 1
b. PROFESSIONAL ETHICS (Comment on any area where the rated officer is particularly outstanding or needs improvement)
1. DEDICATION 2. RESPONSIBILITY 3. LOYALTY 4. DISCIPLINE 5. INTEGRITY 6. MORAL COURAGE 7. SELFLESSNESS
a.7,14 Gifted writer and speaker.
a.5 Maintains bearing and efficiency despite pressures.
b.1 Exceptionally dedicated to mission, soldiers, and unit.
b.7 Highly selfless performance of duty.
-26-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 27 of 39 PageID 4954
PERIOD COVERED: 960701-970415
PART V - PERFORMANCE AND POTENTIAL EVALUATION (Rater)
a. RATED OFFICER'S NAME: WEBB, MICHAEL D. SSN:
RATED OFFICER IS ASSIGNED IN ONE OF HIS/HER DESIGNATED SPECIALTIES/MOS: [X] YES [ ] NO
b. PERFORMANCE DURING THIS RATING PERIOD. REFER TO PART II, DA FORM 67-8 AND PART I a, b, AND c, DA FORM 67-8-1
[X] ALWAYS EXCEEDED REQUIREMENTS [ ] USUALLY EXCEEDED REQUIREMENTS [ ] MET REQUIREMENTS [ ] OFTEN FAILED REQUIREMENTS [ ] USUALLY FAILED REQUIREMENTS
c. COMMENT ON SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE PERFORMANCE. REFER TO PART II, DA FORM 67-8 AND PART I a, b, AND c, DA FORM 67-8-1. DO NOT USE FOR COMMENTS ON POTENTIAL
An absolutely superb young officer. Few better. Committed, tireless, the epitome of the "can do" officer. LT
Webb dynamically managed the myriad of complex Group current operations, nearly 450 distinct missions
during his tenure, in a position normally held by a Captain. Of note were his diligent efforts to codify and
rationalize the Group's new mission focus in support of Army Force XXI developments. He instituted effective
computer based planning tools which simplified planning and allowed for outyear projecting of mission
requirements and tasking. He ensured effective CI augmentation mission planning for new Group overseas
commitments in Bosnia, Honduras, England, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Korea, plus a dozen joint and
major command exercises. LT Webb also developed comprehensive mission plans which integrated new aspects
of Information Operations and Defense Industrial Security support to over two dozen major CI surveys,
Vulnerability assessments and a Army level year long RED TEAM threat simulation in support of the Advanced
Warfighter Experiment. LT Webb also orchestrated the first ever recurring support by Air Force Information
Warfare elements for Group's RED TEAMs and major vulnerability assessments. His high energy, enthusiasm,
and spirit was signally responsible for motivating a small and junior section of three personnel to high levels of
performance and esprit de corps despite near constant personnel turbulence. In all, a great performance.
d. THIS OFFICER'S POTENTIAL FOR PROMOTION TO THE NEXT HIGHER GRADE IS
[X] PROMOTE AHEAD OF CONTEMPORARIES [ ] PROMOTE WITH CONTEMPORARIES [ ] DO NOT PROMOTE [ ] OTHER (Explain below)
e. COMMENT ON POTENTIAL
1LT Webb performs at the 03 level now. Promote him now and use his talents in Company and Detachment
command. He is a comer. Manage his career closely and use his great potential for advanced responsibilities and
the tough jobs in the Army.
PART VI - INTERMEDIATE RATER
a. COMMENTS
PART VII - SENIOR RATER
a. POTENTIAL EVALUATION (See Chapter 4, AR 623-105) SR DA
[X] (top box marked)
*[ 4] RO: 1LT
[ 0] WEBB MICHA
[ 0]
[ 0] SR: 05
[ 0] SIMMO
[ 0] DATE 970422
[ 0]
b. COMMENTS
Top 2% of all LTs I have rated. Superb officer and unlimited potential.
Intelligent. Motivated. Enthusiastic. LT Webb undertook duties usually
reserved for captains and consistently performed far beyond the high
standards set for those tasks. He built and maintained a database which
simplified planning and allowed for outyear projecting of mission
requirements and taskings. Mike has already outdistanced his peers and is
working at the next higher grade. Promote immediately. Selection for
Company command is a must.
-27-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 28 of 39 PageID 4955
Exhibit C
[form number at top left, cut off: illegible]
OFFICER EVALUATION REPORT [small print under title illegible] SEE PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT ON DA FORM 67-9-1
PART I - ADMINISTRATIVE DATA
a. NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial): WEBB, MICHAEL D. b. SSN: c. RANK: CPT d. DATE OF RANK (Year Month Day): 2002 03 01 e. BRANCH: MI f. DESIGNATED SPECIALTIES / PMOS: 35D
g. UNIT, ORG., STATION, ZIP CODE OR APO, MAJOR COMMAND: Co C 1st Bn 417thRegt 1stBde (BCT) 98thDiv (IT), Pennsauken, NJ 08110, W76801 TPU
h. REASON FOR SUBMISSION: 03 Change of Rater
i. PERIOD COVERED FROM (Year Month Day): 2003 11 01 THRU (Year Month Day): 2004 05 23
j. RATED MONTHS: 7 k. NONRATED CODES: l. NO. OF ENCL: 0
m. RATED OFFICER'S COPY (Check one and date): [ ] 1. Given to Officer [X] 2. Forwarded to Officer Date: 20040716
[label illegible]: [handwritten initials] [label illegible]: 14 [label illegible]:
PART II - AUTHENTICATION (Rated officer's signature verifies officer has seen completed OER Parts I-VII and the admin data is correct)
a. NAME OF RATER (Last, First, MI): DANIELS, JODY J. SSN: RANK: LTC POSITION: Battalion Commander SIGNATURE: [signature] DATE: 25 May 2004
b. NAME OF INTERMEDIATE RATER (Last, First, MI): SSN: RANK: POSITION: SIGNATURE: DATE:
c. NAME OF SENIOR RATER (Last, First, MI): CATALANOTTI, ROBERT G. SSN: RANK: COL POSITION: Brigade Commander SIGNATURE: [signature] DATE: 6 Jun 2004
SENIOR RATER'S ORGANIZATION: HHC, 1st Brigade, 98thDiv(IT)
3[illegible]5 Niagara Street, Providence, RI 02907-2099
BRANCH: AG SENIOR RATER TELEPHONE NUMBER: E-MAIL ADDRESS:
[referred-report question, small print illegible] [ ] [ ] [ ] (none marked) e. SIGNATURE OF RATED OFFICER: [signature] DATE: 11 Jul 2004
PART III - DUTY DESCRIPTION
a. PRINCIPAL DUTY TITLE: Company Commander b. POSITION AOC/BR: 01A00
c. SIGNIFICANT DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. REFER TO PART IVa, DA FORM 67-9-1
Company Commander of a basic combat training company that trains new recruits to survive and defeat an enemy
on the battlefield. Responsible for the health, welfare, and professional development of 18 soldiers. Responsible
for accountability and maintenance of all assigned equipment. Additional responsibilities include supporting IBT
for an active component basic training battalion at Fort Leonard Wood, MO and supplying qualified drill sergeants
to support other units at Fort Leonard Wood. Conduct support missions with the USMA, Army Reserve, and
National Guard units to include CTT, BRM, and other training activities. Upon mobilization, support training
base expansion at Fort Leonard Wood, MO to conduct basic training and or rapid train-up for IRR soldiers.
PART IV - PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - PROFESSIONALISM (Rater)
CHARACTER Disposition of the leader: combination of values, attributes, and skills affecting leader actions
a. ARMY VALUES (Comments mandatory for all "NO" entries. Use PART Vb.) Yes No
1. HONOR: Adherence to the Army's publicly declared code of values [X] [ ]
2. INTEGRITY: Possesses high personal moral standards; honest in word and deed [X] [ ]
3. COURAGE: Manifests physical and moral bravery [X] [ ]
4. LOYALTY: Bears true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, the unit, and the soldier [X] [ ]
5. RESPECT: Promotes dignity, consideration, fairness, & EO [X] [ ]
6. SELFLESS-SERVICE: Places Army priorities before self [X] [ ]
7. DUTY: Fulfills professional, legal, and moral obligations [X] [ ]
b. LEADER ATTRIBUTES / SKILLS / ACTIONS: First, mark "YES" or "NO" for each block. Second, choose a total of six that best describe the rated officer. Select one from ATTRIBUTES, two from SKILLS (Competence), and three from ACTIONS (LEADERSHIP). Place an "X" in the appropriate numbered box with optional comments in PART Vb. Comments are mandatory in [rest of line illegible]
b.1. ATTRIBUTES (Select 1) Fundamental qualities and characteristics
1. MENTAL [X] YES [ ] NO Possesses desire, will, initiative, and discipline
[X] PHYSICAL [X] YES [ ] NO Maintains appropriate level of physical fitness and military bearing
3. EMOTIONAL [X] YES [ ] NO Displays self-control; calm under pressure
b.2. SKILLS (Competence) (Select 2) Skill development is part of self-development; prerequisite to action
1. CONCEPTUAL [X] YES [ ] NO Demonstrates sound judgment, critical/creative thinking, moral reasoning
2. INTERPERSONAL [X] YES [ ] NO Shows skill with people: coaching, teaching, counseling, motivating and empowering
[X] TECHNICAL [X] YES [ ] NO Possesses the necessary expertise to accomplish all tasks and functions
[X] TACTICAL [X] YES [ ] NO Demonstrates proficiency in required professional knowledge, judgment, and warfighting
b.3. ACTIONS (LEADERSHIP) (Select 3) Major activities leaders perform: influencing, operating, and improving
INFLUENCING Method of reaching goals while operating / improving
1. COMMUNICATING [X] YES [ ] NO Displays good oral, written, and listening skills for individuals / groups
2. DECISION-MAKING [X] YES [ ] NO Employs sound judgment, logical reasoning and uses resources wisely
3. MOTIVATING [X] YES [ ] NO Inspires, motivates, and guides others toward mission accomplishment
OPERATING Short-term mission accomplishment
[X] PLANNING [X] YES [ ] NO Develops detailed, executable plans that are feasible, acceptable, and suitable
[X] EXECUTING [X] YES [ ] NO Shows tactical proficiency, meets mission standards, and takes care of people/resources
6. ASSESSING [X] YES [ ] NO Uses after-action and evaluation tools to facilitate consistent improvement
IMPROVING Long-term improvement in the Army its people and organizations
7. DEVELOPING [X] YES [ ] NO Invests adequate time and effort to develop individual subordinates as leaders
8. BUILDING [X] YES [ ] NO Spends time and resources improving teams, groups and units; fosters ethical climate
[X] LEARNING [X] YES [ ] NO Seeks self-improvement and organizational growth; envisioning, adapting and leading [rest illegible]
c. APFT: PASS DATE: APR 2[illegible]04 HEIGHT: 70 WEIGHT: 180 YES
d. JUNIOR OFFICER DEVELOPMENT - MANDATORY YES OR NO ENTRY FOR RATERS OF LTs AND WO1s.
WERE DEVELOPMENTAL TASKS RECORDED ON DA FORM 67-9-1a AND QUARTERLY FOLLOW-UP COUNSELINGS CONDUCTED? [X] YES [ ] NO [ ] NA
DA FORM 67-9, OCT 97 REPLACES DA FORM 67-8, 1 SEP 79, WHICH IS OBSOLETE, 1 OCT 97 USAPA V2.01
[stamp: AUG 11 2004]
-28-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 29 of 39 PageID 4956
NAME: WEBB, MICHAEL D. SSN: PERIOD COVERED: 20031101 - 20040523
PART V - PERFORMANCE AND POTENTIAL EVALUATION (Rater)
a. EVALUATE THE RATED OFFICER'S PERFORMANCE DURING THE RATING PERIOD AND HIS/HER POTENTIAL FOR PROMOTION
[X] OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE, MUST PROMOTE [ ] SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, PROMOTE [ ] UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, DO NOT PROMOTE [ ] OTHER (Explain)
b. COMMENT ON SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE PERFORMANCE AND POTENTIAL FOR PROMOTION. REFER TO PART III, DA FORM 67-9 AND PART IVa, b, AND c DA FORM 67-9-1.
CPT Webb put in a spectacular performance during this rating. His primary focus was the development,
preparation, and execution of a multi-battalion 36-hour MOUT FTX. He developed and refined an overall plan
that focused on the Basic Combat Training (BCT) skills that drill sergeants must have to train our newest
soldiers. He developed an extensive OPORDER that included annexes covering all aspects of the mission
including risk assessments. He created briefing materials containing an overview of the entire exercise along with
relevant diagrams of the various sites, routes of march, and MOUT assault sectors. CPT Webb led the execution
of the FTX, which included a 10K tactical road march with ambushes, perimeter security with an overnight soft
probe of the MOUT objective, training and rehearsal on MOUT activities including clearing of rooms, floors,
and buildings; approaching a building; and reacting to an ambush while in a convoy. To make the FTX possible,
he secured funds and equipment to include paintball weapons and pyrotechnics for realism. He coordinated with
Drexel University leadership to have cadets act as OPFOR and then participate in leadership roles. CPT Webb
ensured that AAR's were conducted at the conclusion of each activity to gather immediate feedback. CPT Webb
also facilitated the execution of a MOBEX that integrated legal and medical support resulting in the generation of
numerous mobilization documents, conduct of over 50 dental exams, a variety of required immunizations given,
and a significant number of family members receiving ID cards. Laudably, CPT Webb has continued his
professional development efforts through the completion of the Public Affairs Officer Qualification Course and
the Action Officer Development Course, while also working on the Military Observer Controller Course, and
completing his first semester towards receiving an MBA.
CPT Webb's future is unlimited. He should be assigned as a Bn Assistant S-3 and then a Bn S-3.
c. IDENTIFY ANY UNIQUE PROFESSIONAL SKILLS OR AREAS OF EXPERTISE OF VALUE TO THE ARMY THAT THIS OFFICER POSSESSES. FOR ARMY COMPETITIVE CATEGORY CPT THROUGH LTC, ALSO INDICATE A POTENTIAL CAREER FIELD FOR FUTURE SERVICE.
Would serve the Army best in OPCF 35
PART VI - INTERMEDIATE RATER
PART VII - SENIOR RATER
a. EVALUATE THE RATED OFFICER'S PROMOTION POTENTIAL TO THE NEXT HIGHER GRADE
[X] BEST QUALIFIED [ ] FULLY QUALIFIED [ ] DO NOT PROMOTE [ ] OTHER (Explain below)
I currently senior rate 29 officer(s) in this grade.
A completed DA Form 67-9-1 was received with this report and considered in my evaluation and review: [X] YES [ ] NO (Explain in c)
b. POTENTIAL COMPARED WITH OFFICERS SENIOR RATED IN SAME GRADE (OVERPRINTED BY DA)
USAR COMPARISON OF THE SENIOR RATER'S PROFILE AND BOX CHECK AT THE TIME THIS REPORT PROCESSED
CENTER OF MASS
RO: CPT WEBB MICHAEL D
SR: COL CATALANOTTI ROBERT G
DATE: 2004 08 11
TOTAL RATINGS: 3
RATINGS THIS OFFICER: 1
c. COMMENT ON PERFORMANCE/POTENTIAL
Dedicated, energetic, and professional to the core, CPT Webb's performance was
superlative. His preparation for and execution of the MOBEX and FTX were
noteworthy, ensuring that all large and small details were covered. His personal
coordination efforts directly led to this battalion improving its readiness posture.
His interactions with sister battalion leadership were highly professional and
commendable. He has taken efforts to grow his subordinates, which was obvious
during the high quality multi-battalion FTX. His incorporation of family into the
MOBEX helped strengthen the ties with the Family Readiness Group. CPT Webb
has the potential to be an excellent battalion commander.
d. LIST 3 FUTURE ASSIGNMENTS FOR WHICH THIS OFFICER IS BEST SUITED. FOR ARMY COMPETITIVE CATEGORY CPT THROUGH LTC, ALSO INDICATE A POTENTIAL CAREER FIELD FOR FUTURE SERVICE.
Battalion Assiastant S-3, Battalion S-3, Battalion XO
Would serve the Army best in OPCF 35
DA FORM 67-9, OCT 97 (Reverse) USAPA V2.0[last digit illegible]
-29-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 30 of 39 PageID 4957
00316601
OFFICER EVALUATION REPORT [small print under title illegible] FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO) Protected by Privacy Act of 1974.
PART I - ADMINISTRATIVE DATA
a. NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial): WEBB, MICHAEL D. b. SSN: c. RANK: CPT d. DATE OF RANK (Year Month Day): 2002 03 01 e. BRANCH: MI f. DESIGNATED SPECIALTIES / PMOS: 35D
g. UNIT, ORG., STATION, ZIP CODE OR APO, MAJOR COMMAND: Co C, 1st Bn 417th Regt 1st Bde (BCT) 98th DIV (IT), Pennsauken, NJ 0[illegible]110 W76[illegible]01 TPU
h. REASON FOR SUBMISSION: 05 Annual
i. PERIOD COVERED FROM (Year Month Day): 2004 05 24 THRU (Year Month Day): 2005 05 23
[label illegible] RATED MONTHS: 12 NONRATED CODES: NO. OF ENCL: 0
[rated officer's copy, labels illegible]: [ ] 1. Given to Officer [X] 2. Forwarded to Officer Date: 20050801
[label illegible]: [handwritten initials] [label illegible]: 14 [label illegible]:
PART II - AUTHENTICATION (Rated officer's signature verifies officer has seen completed OER Parts I-VII and the admin data is correct)
a. NAME OF RATER (Last, First, MI): MERRILL, DANA M. SSN: RANK: LTC POSITION: Battalion Commander SIGNATURE: [signature] DATE: 14 Jun 2005
b. NAME OF INTERMEDIATE RATER (Last, First, MI): SSN: RANK: POSITION: SIGNATURE: DATE:
c. NAME OF SENIOR RATER (Last, First, MI): CARPENTER, BRIAN M. SSN: RANK: COL POSITION: Brigade Commander SIGNATURE: [signature] DATE: 16 Jul 2005
SENIOR RATER'S ORGANIZATION: HHC 1st Bde (BCT) 9[illegible]th DIV (IT)
3[illegible]5 Niagara Street, Providence, RI 02907-2099
BRANCH: IN SENIOR RATER TELEPHONE NUMBER: E-MAIL ADDRESS:
[referred-report question, small print illegible] [ ] [ ] [ ] (none marked) e. SIGNATURE OF RATED OFFICER: [signature] DATE: 17 Jul 2005
PART III - DUTY DESCRIPTION
a. PRINCIPAL DUTY TITLE: Company Commander b. POSITION AOC/BR: 01A00
c. SIGNIFICANT DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. [rest of label illegible]
Company Commander of a basic combat training company that trains new recruits to survive and defeat an enemy
on the battlefield; responsible for the health, welfare and professional development of 1[illegible] soldiers; responsible for
the accountability and maintenance of assigned equipment; additional responsibilities include supporting Initial
Entry Training (IET) at Fort Leonard Wood, MO and supplying qualified drill sergeants to support other units at
Fort Leonard Wood; conduct support missions with the US Military Academy (USMA), US Army Reserve, and
National Guard units to include Warrior Task Training (WTT), Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM) and other
activities; upon mobilization, support training base expansion at Fort Leonard Wood to conduct basic training
and/or rapid train-up for IRR soldiers; plan, coordinate and execute organizational events.
PART IV - PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - PROFESSIONALISM (Rater)
CHARACTER [descriptor small print illegible]
a. ARMY VALUES (Comments mandatory for all "NO" entries. Use PART Vb.) Yes No
1. HONOR [X] [ ]
2. INTEGRITY [X] [ ]
3. COURAGE [X] [ ]
4. LOYALTY [X] [ ]
5. RESPECT [X] [ ]
6. SELFLESS-SERVICE [X] [ ]
7. DUTY [X] [ ]
b. LEADER ATTRIBUTES / SKILLS / ACTIONS: [instructions small print illegible] Comments are mandatory in Part Vb for all "No" entries.
[descriptor lines under each item: small print illegible]
b.1. ATTRIBUTES (Select 1)
1. MENTAL [X] YES [ ] NO
[X] PHYSICAL [X] YES [ ] NO
3. EMOTIONAL [X] YES [ ] NO
b.2. SKILLS (Competence) (Select 2)
[X] CONCEPTUAL [X] YES [ ] NO
2. INTERPERSONAL [X] YES [ ] NO
[X] TECHNICAL [X] YES [ ] NO
4. TACTICAL [X] YES [ ] NO
b.3. ACTIONS (LEADERSHIP) (Select 3)
INFLUENCING
1. COMMUNICATING [X] YES [ ] NO
2. DECISION-MAKING [X] YES [ ] NO
3. MOTIVATING [X] YES [ ] NO
OPERATING
[X] PLANNING [X] YES [ ] NO
5. EXECUTING [X] YES [ ] NO
6. ASSESSING [X] YES [ ] NO
IMPROVING
[X] DEVELOPING [X] YES [ ] NO
8. BUILDING [X] YES [ ] NO
[X] LEARNING [X] YES [ ] NO
c. APFT: PASS DATE: NOV 2004 HEIGHT: 70 WEIGHT: 183 YES
d. OFFICER DEVELOPMENT - MANDATORY YES OR NO ENTRY FOR RATERS OF CPTs, LTs, CW2s, AND WO1s.
WERE DEVELOPMENTAL TASKS RECORDED ON DA FORM 67-9-1a AND QUARTERLY FOLLOW-UP COUNSELINGS CONDUCTED? [ ] YES [ ] NO [X] [label under mark illegible]
DA FORM 67-[illegible], DEC 2004 [replaces line, small print illegible]
[stamp: AUG 04 2005]
-30-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 31 of 39 PageID 4958
NAME: WEBB, MICHAEL D. SSN: PERIOD COVERED: 20040524 - 20050523
PART V - PERFORMANCE AND POTENTIAL EVALUATION (Rater)
a. [label small print illegible]
[ ] OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE, MUST PROMOTE [X] SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, PROMOTE [ ] UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, DO NOT PROMOTE [ ] OTHER (Explain)
b. COMMENT ON SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE PERFORMANCE AND POTENTIAL FOR PROMOTION. [rest of label illegible]
CPT Webb is an excellent officer who continues to do well. During the training year he has planned and
conducted a battalion level field training exercise that included range qualification and MOUT training. He has
also been responsible for coordinating and executing Warrior Task Training and NBC Training. As the battalion
Mobilization Officer, CPT Webb has been an asset to the unit. He volunteered to support the recent unit
deployment where he updated the home station activity plan and coordinated with higher headquarters to ensure
all relevant tasks. CPT Webb also updated the unit Mobilization Files and received a satisfactory rating from our
recent brigade Organizational Inspection. CPT Webb is always looking to improve upon his knowledge. He is
enrolled in an MBA program and has recently completed the Combined Arms Exercise. CPT Webb is a fine
officer and would do well as a battalion S-1 or Asst battalion S-3.
c. [label small print illegible]
Would serve the Army best in OPCF/35
PART VI - INTERMEDIATE RATER
PART VII - SENIOR RATER
a. [label small print illegible]
[X] BEST QUALIFIED [ ] FULLY QUALIFIED [ ] DO NOT PROMOTE [ ] OTHER (Explain below)
I currently senior rate 12 officer(s) in this grade.
[DA Form 67-9-1 received line, small print illegible]: [X] YES [ ] NO
b. [label small print illegible]
USAR COMPARISON OF THE SENIOR RATER'S PROFILE AND BOX CHECK AT THE TIME THIS REPORT PROCESSED
NO BOX CHECK
RO: CPT WEBB MICHAEL D
SR: COL CARPENTER BRIAN M
DATE: 0
TOTAL RATINGS: 0
RATINGS THIS OFFICER: 0
c. COMMENT ON PERFORMANCE/POTENTIAL
CPT Webb continues his record of solid performance. He meticulously planned
and executed three battalion level training events. CPT Webb also is the go-to
guy for mobilization assistance for his battalion. He excelled at supporting all
battalion soldiers during their deployment for Operation Iraqi Freedom. CPT
Webb possesses the mental awareness and dedication to duty of a more senior
officer. He would do well as an Assistant Battalion S-3.
d. [label small print illegible]
Assistant Battalion S-3, Battalion S-1, Battalion S-4
Would serve the Army best in OPCF/35
DA FORM 67-9, DEC 2004 (Reverse)
-31-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 32 of 39 PageID 4959
00365438
OFFICER EVALUATION REPORT For use of this form, see AR 623-105; the proponent agency is DCS, G-1. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO) Protected by Privacy Act of 1974.
PART I - ADMINISTRATIVE DATA
a. NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial): WEBB, MICHAEL D. b. SSN: c. RANK: CPT d. DATE OF RANK (Year Month Day): 2002 03 01 e. BRANCH: MI f. DESIGNATED SPECIALTIES / PMOS: 35D
g. UNIT, ORG., STATION, ZIP CODE OR APO, MAJOR COMMAND: Co C 1st Bn 417th Regt 1st Bde(BCT) 9[illegible]th Div(IT), Pennsauken, NJ 0[illegible]110, W76[illegible]01 TPU
h. REASON FOR SUBMISSION: 04 PCS
i. PERIOD COVERED FROM (Year Month Day): 2005 05 24 THRU (Year Month Day): 2006 03 12
j. RATED MONTHS: 10 k. NONRATED CODES: l. NO. OF ENCL: 0
m. RATED OFFICER COPY (Check one and date): [ ] 1. Given to Officer [X] 2. Forwarded to Officer Date: 20060616
n. PSB INITIAL: [handwritten initials] o. CMD CODE: 14 p. PSB CODE:
PART II - AUTHENTICATION (Rated officer's signature verifies officer has seen completed OER Parts I-VII and the admin data is correct)
a. NAME OF RATER (Last, First, MI): MERRILL, DANA M. SSN: RANK: LTC POSITION: Battalion Commander SIGNATURE: [signature] DATE: 6 May 2006
b. NAME OF INTERMEDIATE RATER (Last, First, MI): SSN: RANK: POSITION: SIGNATURE: DATE:
c. NAME OF SENIOR RATER (Last, First, MI): DENISEWICH, RAYMOND SSN: RANK: COL POSITION: Brigade Commander SIGNATURE: [signature] DATE: 16 May 2006
SENIOR RATER'S ORGANIZATION: HHC 1st Bde (BCT) 9[illegible]th Div (IT)
385 Niagara Street, Providence, RI 02907-2099
BRANCH: IN SENIOR RATER TELEPHONE NUMBER: E-MAIL ADDRESS:
[referred-report question, small print illegible] [ ] [ ] [ ] (none marked) e. SIGNATURE OF RATED OFFICER: [signature] DATE: 26 May 2006
PART III - DUTY DESCRIPTION
a. PRINCIPAL DUTY TITLE: Company Commander b. POSITION AOC/BR: 01A00
c. SIGNIFICANT DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. REFER TO PART IVa, DA FORM 67-9-1
Company Commander of a Basic Combat Training Company that trains new recruits to survive and defeat an
enemy on the battlefield. Responsible for the health, welfare, and professional development of 1[illegible] soldiers.
Responsible for the accountability and maintenance of assigned equipment. Responsibilities include supporting
Initial Entry Training (IET) at Fort Leonard Wood, conducting support missions with the US Military Academy
(USMA), US Army Reserve, Civil Affairs Units and National Guard units to include Warrior Task Training
(WTT), Common Task Training(CTT), Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM) and other activities. Upon
mobilization, support training base expansion at Fort Leonard Wood, MO to conduct basic combat training and/or
rapid train-up for IRR soldiers. Plan, coordinate, and organize events.
PART IV - PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - PROFESSIONALISM (Rater)
CHARACTER Disposition of the leader: combination of values, attributes, and skills affecting leader actions
a. ARMY VALUES (Comments mandatory for all "NO" entries. Use PART Vb.) Yes No
1. HONOR: Adherence to the Army's publicly declared code of values [X] [ ]
2. INTEGRITY: Possesses high personal moral standards; honest in word and deed [X] [ ]
3. COURAGE: Manifests physical and moral bravery [X] [ ]
4. LOYALTY: Bears true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, the unit, and the soldier [X] [ ]
5. RESPECT: Promotes dignity, consideration, fairness, & EO [X] [ ]
6. SELFLESS-SERVICE: Places Army priorities before self [X] [ ]
7. DUTY: Fulfills professional, legal, and moral obligations [X] [ ]
b. LEADER ATTRIBUTES / SKILLS / ACTIONS: First, mark "YES" or "NO" for each block. Second, choose a total of six that best describe the rated officer. Select one from ATTRIBUTES, two from SKILLS (Competence), and three from ACTIONS (LEADERSHIP). Place an "X" in the appropriate numbered box with optional comments in PART Vb. Comments are mandatory in Part Vb for all "No" entries.
b.1. ATTRIBUTES (Select 1) Fundamental qualities and characteristics
[X] MENTAL [X] YES [ ] NO Possesses desire, will, initiative, and discipline
2. PHYSICAL [X] YES [ ] NO Maintains appropriate level of physical fitness and military bearing
3. EMOTIONAL [X] YES [ ] NO Displays self-control; calm under pressure
b.2. SKILLS (Competence) (Select 2) Skill development is part of self-development; prerequisite to action
[X] CONCEPTUAL [X] YES [ ] NO Demonstrates sound judgment, critical/creative thinking, moral reasoning
2. INTERPERSONAL [X] YES [ ] NO Shows skill with people: coaching, teaching, counseling, motivating and empowering
[X] TECHNICAL [X] YES [ ] NO Possesses the necessary expertise to accomplish all tasks and functions
4. TACTICAL [X] YES [ ] NO Demonstrates proficiency in required professional knowledge, judgment, and warfighting
b.3. ACTIONS (LEADERSHIP) (Select 3) Major activities leaders perform: influencing, operating, and improving
INFLUENCING Method of reaching goals while operating / improving
[X] COMMUNICATING [X] YES [ ] NO Displays good oral, written, and listening skills for individuals / groups
2. DECISION-MAKING [X] YES [ ] NO Employs sound judgment, logical reasoning and uses resources wisely
3. MOTIVATING [X] YES [ ] NO Inspires, motivates, and guides others toward mission accomplishment
OPERATING Short-term mission accomplishment
[X] PLANNING [X] YES [ ] NO Develops detailed, executable plans that are feasible, acceptable, and suitable
5. EXECUTING [X] YES [ ] NO Shows tactical proficiency, meets mission standards, and takes care of people/resources
6. ASSESSING [X] YES [ ] NO Uses after-action and evaluation tools to facilitate consistent improvement
IMPROVING Long-term improvement in the Army its people and organizations
7. DEVELOPING [X] YES [ ] NO Invests adequate time and effort to develop individual subordinates as leaders
8. BUILDING [X] YES [ ] NO Spends time and resources improving teams, groups and units; fosters ethical climate
[X] LEARNING [X] YES [ ] NO Seeks self-improvement and organizational growth; envisioning, adapting and leading change
c. APFT: PASS DATE: JUN 2005 HEIGHT: 69 WEIGHT: 194 YES
d. OFFICER DEVELOPMENT - MANDATORY YES OR NO ENTRY FOR RATERS OF CPTs, LTs, CW2s, AND WO1s.
WERE DEVELOPMENTAL TASKS RECORDED ON DA FORM 67-9-1a AND QUARTERLY FOLLOW-UP COUNSELINGS CONDUCTED? [ ] YES [ ] NO [X] [label under mark illegible]
DA FORM 67-9, DEC 2004 REPLACES DA FORM 67-9, OCT 97, WHICH IS OBSOLETE. APD V1.00
[stamp at bottom right, cut off: illegible]
-32-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 33 of 39 PageID 4960
NAME: WEBB, MICHAEL D. SSN: PERIOD COVERED: 20050524 - 20060312
PART V - PERFORMANCE AND POTENTIAL EVALUATION (Rater)
a. EVALUATE THE RATED OFFICER'S PERFORMANCE DURING THE RATING PERIOD AND HIS/HER POTENTIAL FOR PROMOTION
[X] OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE, MUST PROMOTE [ ] SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, PROMOTE [ ] UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, DO NOT PROMOTE [ ] OTHER (Explain)
b. COMMENT ON SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE PERFORMANCE AND POTENTIAL FOR PROMOTION. REFER TO PART III, DA FORM 67-9 AND PART IVa, b, AND c DA FORM 67-9-1.
CPT Webb continues to exceed the standard. In support of the United States Military Academy, he planned,
coordinated, and executed Night Fire Ranges for USMA cadets, while managing taskforce soldiers from 4
different units. Always seeking to develop new ways to conduct training, he forged partnerships with Rutgers
University-Camden and Haddonfield High school and executed the first ever battalion level training for
Combatives. As an experienced battalion level planner he had done all the ground work for the battalion Field
Training Exercise. The Field Training Exercise focused on Weapons Qualification for 4 Army Reserve Units,
Warrior Task Training, Convoy Operations, Improvised Explosive Device-Defeat, and Forward Operating Base
tactics, techniques, and procedures. He also coordinated the use of the Forward Operating Base on Fort Dix and
the Fort Dix Central Issue Facility to support the FTX operations. During this rating period CPT Webb has
picked up the additional duties of Safety Officer and IED-D Trainer for the battalion. He aggressively tracked
down the appropriate training and achieved the qualifications needed to perform these functions. CPT Webb has
also acted as the Executive Officer for the battalion and conducted Staff visits to Fort Leonard Wood to evaluate
the performance of this battalion's Drill Sergeants. He has also managed to increase his company strength from
64 to 77%.

CPT Webb is an excellent officer and would do well as a Battalion Assistant S-3 or Battalion S-4. Promote to
Major.
c. IDENTIFY ANY UNIQUE PROFESSIONAL SKILLS OR AREAS OF EXPERTISE OF VALUE TO THE ARMY THAT THIS OFFICER POSSESSES. FOR ARMY COMPETITIVE CATEGORY CPT THROUGH LTC, ALSO INDICATE A POTENTIAL CAREER FIELD FOR FUTURE SERVICE
Would serve the Army best in OPCF 35.
PART VI - INTERMEDIATE RATER
PART VII - SENIOR RATER
a. EVALUATE THE RATED OFFICER'S PROMOTION POTENTIAL TO THE NEXT HIGHER GRADE
[X] BEST QUALIFIED [ ] FULLY QUALIFIED [ ] DO NOT PROMOTE [ ] OTHER (Explain below)
I currently senior rate 17 officer(s) in this grade.
A completed DA Form 67-9-1 was received with this report and considered in my evaluation and review: [X] YES [ ] NO (Explain in c)
b. POTENTIAL COMPARED WITH OFFICERS SENIOR RATED IN SAME GRADE (OVERPRINTED BY DA)
USAR COMPARISON OF THE SENIOR RATER'S PROFILE AND BOX CHECK AT THE TIME THIS REPORT PROCESSED
NO BOX CHECK
RO: CPT WEBB MICHAEL D
SR: COL DENISEWICH RAYMOND
DATE: 200[illegible] 07 1[illegible]
TOTAL RATINGS:
RATINGS THIS OFFICER:
c. COMMENT ON PERFORMANCE/POTENTIAL
CPT Webb has done an outstanding job this rating period. He continues to
meticulously plan and execute battalion/taskforce level training events. He
excelled at supporting USMA cadets during their Night Fire Ranges and forged
soldiers from four different units into a cohesive team. CPT Webb continuously
seeks to improve his abilities. He became the IED-D trainer for his battalion and
has begun to weave the training into the battalion's training schedule. CPT Webb
demonstrates a maturity and dedication to duty of a more senior officer. He would
do well as an Assistant Battalion S-3. Promote to Major with his peers.
d. LIST 3 FUTURE ASSIGNMENTS FOR WHICH THIS OFFICER IS BEST SUITED. FOR ARMY COMPETITIVE CATEGORY CPT THROUGH LTC, ALSO INDICATE A POTENTIAL CAREER FIELD FOR FUTURE SERVICE.
Battalion Assistant S-3, Battalion S-4, Battalion S-3
Would serve the Army best in OPCF 35
DA FORM 67-9, DEC 2004 (Reverse) APD V1.00
-33-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 34 of 39 PageID 4961
Exhibit D
00185433
OFFICER EVALUATION REPORT For use of this form, see AR 623-105; the proponent agency is DCSPER SEE PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT ON DA FORM 67-9-1
PART I - ADMINISTRATIVE DATA
a. NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial): WEBB, MICHAEL D. b. SSN: c. RANK: CPT d. DATE OF RANK (Year Month Day): 2002 03 01 e. BRANCH: MI f. DESIGNATED SPECIALTIES / PMOS: 35D
g. UNIT, ORG., STATION, ZIP CODE OR APO, MAJOR COMMAND: 1st Bn, 417th Regt, 1st Bde, 98th Div (IT), Pennsauken, NJ 08110 (W768AA) (TPU)
h. REASON FOR SUBMISSION: 04 Change of Duty
i. PERIOD COVERED FROM (Year Month Day): 2001 11 04 THRU (Year Month Day): 2002 10 31
j. RATED MONTHS: 12 k. NONRATED CODES: l. NO. OF ENCL: 0
m. RATED OFFICER COPY (Check one and date): [ ] 1. Given to Officer [X] 2. Forwarded to Officer Date: 20030211
n. PSB INITIAL: [handwritten initials] o. CMD CODE: 14 p. PSB CODE:
PART II - AUTHENTICATION (Rated officer's signature verifies officer has seen completed OER Parts I-VII and the admin data is correct)
a. NAME OF RATER (Last, First, MI): HERWEHE, Kenneth J. SSN: RANK: MAJ POSITION: Executive Officer SIGNATURE: [signature] DATE: 8 Dec 2002
b. NAME OF INTERMEDIATE RATER (Last, First, MI): SSN: RANK: POSITION: SIGNATURE: DATE:
c. NAME OF SENIOR RATER (Last, First, MI): DANIELS, Jody J. SSN: RANK: LTC POSITION: Commander SIGNATURE: [signature] DATE: 5 Jan 2003
SENIOR RATER'S ORGANIZATION: HHD, 1st Bn, 417th Regt, 1st BDE, 9[illegible]th Div (IT)
3911 Federal Street, Pennsauken, NJ 0[illegible]110
BRANCH: MI SENIOR RATER TELEPHONE NUMBER: E-MAIL ADDRESS:
[referred-report question, small print illegible] [ ] [ ] Yes, comments are attached [ ] No (none marked) e. SIGNATURE OF RATED OFFICER: [signature] DATE: 5 JAN 2003
PART III - DUTY DESCRIPTION
a. PRINCIPAL DUTY TITLE: Personnel Officer S-1 b. POSITION AOC/BR: 01A00
c. SIGNIFICANT DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. REFER TO PART IVa, DA FORM 67-9-1
Personnel Officer for an Initial Entry Training (IET) Battalion consisting of an HHD and five line companies.
Advises and assists the Commander in all matters relating to personnel actions. Provide leadership to personnel
section to ensure soldiers are trained and ready to perform assigned duties to meet unit mission requirements.
Additional duties include: Mobilization officer; Weight control Officer; Information Manager; Reenlistment
Officer; Public Affairs Officer; Records Management Officer; Telecommunications Control Officer; Mobilization
Purchasing Authority; Information system Officer; OER/NCOER control Officer; DEERS Enrollment Verifying
Officer.
PART IV - PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - PROFESSIONALISM (Rater)
CHARACTER Disposition of the leader: combination of values, attributes, and skills affecting leader actions
a. ARMY VALUES (Comments mandatory for all "NO" entries. Use PART Vb.) Yes No
1. HONOR: Adherence to the Army's publicly declared code of values [X] [ ]
2. INTEGRITY: Possesses high personal moral standards; honest in word and deed [X] [ ]
3. COURAGE: Manifests physical and moral bravery [X] [ ]
4. LOYALTY: Bears true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, the unit, and the soldier [X] [ ]
5. RESPECT: Promotes dignity, consideration, fairness, & EO [X] [ ]
6. SELFLESS-SERVICE: Places Army priorities before self [X] [ ]
7. DUTY: Fulfills professional, legal, and moral obligations [X] [ ]
b. LEADER ATTRIBUTES / SKILLS / ACTIONS: First, mark "YES" or "NO" for each block. Second, choose a total of six that best describe the rated officer. Select one from ATTRIBUTES, two from SKILLS (Competence), and three from ACTIONS (LEADERSHIP). Place an "X" in the appropriate numbered box with optional comments in PART Vb. Comments are mandatory in Part Vb for all "No" entries.
b.1. ATTRIBUTES (Select 1) Fundamental qualities and characteristics
1. MENTAL [X] YES [ ] NO Possesses desire, will, initiative, and discipline
[X] PHYSICAL [X] YES [ ] NO Maintains appropriate level of physical fitness and military bearing
3. EMOTIONAL [X] YES [ ] NO Displays self-control; calm under pressure
b.2. SKILLS (Competence) (Select 2) Skill development is part of self-development; prerequisite to action
[X] CONCEPTUAL [X] YES [ ] NO Demonstrates sound judgment, critical/creative thinking, moral reasoning
2. INTERPERSONAL [X] YES [ ] NO Shows skill with people: coaching, teaching, counseling, motivating and empowering
[X] TECHNICAL [X] YES [ ] NO Possesses the necessary expertise to accomplish all tasks and functions
4. TACTICAL [X] YES [ ] NO Demonstrates proficiency in required professional knowledge, judgment, and warfighting
b.3. ACTIONS (LEADERSHIP) (Select 3) Major activities leaders perform: influencing, operating, and improving
INFLUENCING Method of reaching goals while operating / improving
1. COMMUNICATING [X] YES [ ] NO Displays good oral, written, and listening skills for individuals / groups
2. DECISION-MAKING [X] YES [ ] NO Employs sound judgment, logical reasoning and uses resources wisely
3. MOTIVATING [X] YES [ ] NO Inspires, motivates, and guides others toward mission accomplishment
OPERATING Short-term mission accomplishment
4. PLANNING [X] YES [ ] NO Develops detailed, executable plans that are feasible, acceptable, and suitable
[X] EXECUTING [X] YES [ ] NO Shows tactical proficiency, meets mission standards, and takes care of people/resources
6. ASSESSING [X] YES [ ] NO Uses after-action and evaluation tools to facilitate consistent improvement
IMPROVING Long-term improvement in the Army its people and organizations
[X] DEVELOPING [X] YES [ ] NO Invests adequate time and effort to develop individual subordinates as leaders
8. BUILDING [X] YES [ ] NO Spends time and resources improving teams, groups and units; fosters ethical climate
[X] LEARNING [X] YES [ ] NO Seeks self-improvement and organizational growth; envisioning, adapting and leading change
c. APFT: PASS DATE: OCT 2002 HEIGHT: 70 WEIGHT: 179 YES
d. JUNIOR OFFICER DEVELOPMENT - MANDATORY YES OR NO ENTRY FOR RATERS OF LTs AND WO1s.
WERE DEVELOPMENTAL TASKS RECORDED ON DA FORM 67-9-1a AND QUARTERLY FOLLOW-UP COUNSELINGS CONDUCTED? [ ] YES [ ] NO [X] NA
DA FORM 67-9, OCT 97 REPLACES DA FORM 67-8, 1 SEP 79, WHICH IS OBSOLETE, 1 OCT 97 USAPA V2.00
[stamp: FEB 19 2003]
-34-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 35 of 39 PageID 4962
Exhibit E
[logo: cowboy hat with halo over a letter W]
955 S Columbus Street, #426
Arlington, Virginia 222[illegible]4
(802) 468-7589
GiveFaithATry@gmail.com
March 23, 2020
Dionne Hardy
White House FOIA Officer
The White House
725 17th Street NW, Suite 9204
Washington, DC 20503
Dennis C. Barghaan, Jr.
U.S. Attorney
Eastern District of Virginia
Alexandria Division
2100 Jamieson Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22314
RE: Request for Information Regarding Classification of a Novel Coronavirus
Dear Ms. Hardy:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, we are presenting this request
for release of documents pertaining to the classification of COVID-19, an infectious pathogen, for
which, that, 607,234, 476,123 laboratory confirmed, 25,94[illegible] hospitalizations, 24,631 laboratory
confirmed, and 10,137 fatalities, 8,497 laboratory confirmed in the Commonwealth of Virginia,
CITE, where the nation's only physician serving as a state governor, CITE, has evaded the Sheriff
for the City of Alexandria since April 2, 2020, Webb v. Northam, et al., Case Number CL20001624
(Alexandria Cir. 2020), in contempt of court, Va. Code § 1[illegible].2-456(B); Va. Code § 16.1-264, and
has evaded the United States Marshal since June 2, 2020. Webb v. Northam, Civil Action No.
3:20CV497 (E.D.Va. 2020), on appeal Webb v. Northam, et al., Record Number 20-1968 (Fourth
Cir. 2020), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(C), with impunity.
Statement of the Facts
According to national public health authorities, "COVID-19 spreads mainly from person
to person through respiratory droplets", and they claim that "Studies show that masks reduce the
spray of droplets when worn over the nose and mouth." Staff, "Guidance for Wearing Masks,"
CDC, February 1[illegible], 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-
face-cover-guidance.html (accessed March 23, 2021). Moreover, as you may, or may not, be
aware, "[i]n a statement, AstraZeneca said its COVID-19 vaccine had a 79% efficacy rate at
preventing symptomatic COVID and was 100% effective in stopping severe disease and
hospitalization." Maria Cheng & Lauran Neergaard, "AstraZeneca: US data shows vaccine
effective for all ages," ABC News, March 22, 2021. But see James Crump, "Three fully vaccinated
Hawaii residents test positive for Covid," Independent, March 22, 2021. Further, "[t]here was a
comparable response betweenthe 100-µg and 250-µg dose groups, and both were greater compared
-1-
-35-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 36 of 39 PageID 4963
Exhibit F
[phone screenshot]
19:06 5GE
< Inbox 16 Messages
MBX OMB FOIA
To: Mike.Webb84@gmai... >
3/23/21
RE: [EXTERNAL] FOIA
Request Re:
Infectious Dose and
Secondary Attack
Rate
Greetings: This email
acknowledges receipt of your
Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request to the Office
of Management and Budget
(OMB) dated and received in
this office on March 23,
2021. Your appeal has been
logged in and is being
processed. For your
-36-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 37 of 39 PageID 4964
[phone screenshot]
19:06 5GE
< Inbox 16 Messages FOIA Request Re: Inf...
processed. For your
reference, the OMB FOIA
number is 21-220.
Thank you,
Dionne Hardy
From: Michael Webb
<mike.webb84@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23,
2021 4:32 PM
To: MBX OMB FOIA
<MBX.OMB.FOIA@OMB.eo
p.gov>; Dennis Barghaan
<dennis.barghaan@usdoj.go
v>
Cc: Scott McCaffrey
<smccaffrey@sungazette.net
>; Patricia Sullivan
<Patricia.Sullivan@washpost
.com>; John Gizzi
<johng@newsmax.com>; [bottom of line cut off by the screen edge]
-37-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 38 of 39 PageID 4965
Exhibit G
[phone screenshot]
TC The Republic Can 00:18
To: otp.informationde... & 15 more >
Formal Complaint Under
Article 15 of the Rome Statute
Regarding a Novel Coronavirus
Lenten Greetings!
I have many distinctions, particularly of
late, to include being named the number
two internet fail politician in the world,
according to Rolling Stone and Nigeria
Today (deleted), sandwiched between two
former Members of British Parliament, and,
I have yet to hold an elective office. Such
is public life, but, in a former life, I had
been a special operations soldier, assigned
to the elite 75th Ranger Regiment, and the
former Operations Officer for all U.S. Army
strategic counterintelligence, and, suffice
it to say that a novel coronavirus was not
necessarily entirely novel to me, generally,
within the context of particular aspects
that suggested that it was not an [bottom of line cut off by the screen edge]
-38-
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 143 Filed 05/02/22 Page 39 of 39 PageID 4966
[copy of a USPS Priority Mail flat rate envelope; the ECF header is printed over its top edge]
P U.S. POSTAGE $14.55 PM 2-DAY 22204 0006 Date of sale 04/28/22 08 2S 11486187 SSK
PRIORITY MAIL 2-DAY®
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
EXPECTED DELIVERY DAY: 05/02/22 0006
SHIP TO:
501 W 10TH ST
FORT WORTH TX 76102
USPS CERTIFIED MAIL®
9502 [illegible]0[illegible]7 1[illegible]1[illegible] 211[illegible] 67[illegible][illegible] 37
TRACKED ■ INSURED
PS00001000014 EP14F May 2020 OD: 12 1/2 x 9 1/2
PRIORITY® MAIL PRESS FIRMLY TO SEAL PRIORITY MAIL FLAT RATE ENVELOPE POSTAGE REQUIRED
[partly covered envelope text:] ...ance (restrictions apply).* ...ernational destinations. ...rm is required. ...s exclusions see the ...y and limitations of coverage.
To schedule free Package Pickup, scan the QR code. USPS.COM/PICKUP
FROM: [handwritten] Fauci Virus Litigation
955 S Columbus St
#426
Arlington, VA
22204
TO: [handwritten] Clerk
US Dist Court
Northern District
[struck through: Fort Worth, TX]
501 West 10th St
Rm 310
Fort Worth TX 7610[illegible]
3673
[diagonal stamp: X-RAY]
[stamp: RECEIVED MAY - 2 2022 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS]
[side print: This packaging is the property of the U.S. Postal Service® and is provided solely for use in sending Priority Mail® and Priority Mail International® shipments.]


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.143.0.pdf

Size

2,274,366 bytes

SHA-256

246d8bef6933cf672b84816254ef16220eb6d3ee73be6fba6b48410581f1447b

Our copy

gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.143.0.pdf

Original

archive.org