Three emails in a series - providing evidence the FBI released me as a Confidential Informant.

Subject: Fuel analogy - for the record
From: nite@prowlingowl.com
Date: 8/3/2010 4:55 PM
To: Bradley.Thompson@ic.fbi.gov

Brad,

After our discussion yesterday, it would be disingenuous and irresponsible of me not to express my concerns, and get this on record. The reasons you provided for why there is little interest in pursuing tax credits, are the same that I have been battling since day one. Even though I recognize that is the official position, it is unacceptable. Often remaining quiet is viewed as accepting or deferring to authorities. That I refuse to do, when I view their position as being so wrong. Position does not bestow wisdom. Often has the opposite effect.

Difficult to prove corruption, and as you referred to “having a federal nexus”, are not the standard for justice. Wrong is not predicated on how easy or difficult the task to prove. The basic facts remain the same. The only alternative I can see is the issues; have not been given sufficient consideration. The reason given for not pursuing the tax credit issue are off point.

How so? When you strip away all of the cover stories the basic wrong is the same as the following.

Someone bills the state for delivering 1,000 gallons of fuel, when in fact they only delivered 150 gallons. You need insider(s) willing to sign off without measuring the fuel delivered. Happens all the time. The only difference is everyone understands fuel, and they have allowed diversionary cover stories to dissuade putting the effort to understand.

The basis for “not investigating” and, I want to reemphasis “not investigating,” to get the facts; is because so many are hung up on the diversionary secondary issues of whether they (Doughty) had 1,000 gallons of fuel or not? Or, whether he only had water? Did they buy or steal the fuel?

The simple fact is that only 150 gallons where delivered, yet the claim was 1,000 gallons were delivered. The person responsible for the fuel storage, stated they only delivered 150 gallons. That would be John Daniel for tax credits.

The fact they never had the fuel, or the means to deliver more than the 150 gallons supports the argument; but is not the key wrong. To say that is hard to prove, doesn`t compute. To say that is bad law, when it would not be considered bad law if this were something like fuel, everyone understood?

Confusion is used to hide all successful frauds. The issue that keeps haunting me is how officials, who are supposed to be the experts, have bought into the disguise. Officials who demand the level of evidence needed to prove a murder case, beyond a reasonable doubt, before they will investigate; will grasp the flimsiest of straws to avoid investigating; or simply peeling back a few thin outer layers of the onion.

Yet the reason to ignore is because Doughty claimed he had a 1,000 gallons of fuel, and they are trying to divert the argument to be about how Doughty could have had 1,000 gallons. Yet no one wants to address the fact he only delivered 150 gallons.

The argument about whether Doughty had the fuel may be more complicated and hard to prove, the crime is simple. Did Doughty or did Doughty not deliver the 1,000 gallons as he claimed and received payment?

If this antagonizes some, then so be it. When we let the difficulty of obtaining justice rule, we no longer have justice.

Nick
 

Subject: Re: For the record
From: Bradley.Thompson@ic.fbi.gov
Date: 8/3/2010 5:26 PM
To: nite@prowlingowl.com

Nick,

Our focus is different and I think this will continue to be a source of frustration for you, which is an unintended and unwanted consequence of our communication.

I have to pursue this the right way and appreciate the information you have brought to my attention. While our focus is different, I believe that the objective(s) will eventually be attained, but not in a time frame or way that you will find acceptable.

With that considered, unless you have any further information regarding the bank fraud, which is my mission here, it is probably time for me to again thank you for your help and sincerely wish you luck with your future (and your new book!)

If you come across any additional information that could help the bank case, I'll be here.

Thanks again.

Brad



Subject: Re: For the record
From: Bradley.Thompson@ic.fbi.gov
Date: 8/6/2010 9:44 AM
To: nite@prowlingowl.com

Nick,

I would like to bring to a close our contact on a pleasant note. If you are willing, Andy and I would like to take you to lunch as a thank you for your time and efforts.

Brad