No government will ever be free from corruption and no government will ever be a meritocracy. Some conduct by a government however is so egregious that it falls well outside the bounds of acceptable and justifiable behavior that public scrutiny and disclosure is essential. This site details one such case.

Examining the Special Agent Ellen Ripperger incident with a similarly situated comparator, here is how a state law enforcement agent dealt with a similar incident versus the Secret Service, a federal law enforcement agency.

In New Jersey, State Police Trooper Michael Patterson disabled the digital recorder in his police car to prevent it from capturing a vehicle stop he conducted so that he could make advances on a female motorist. After an investigation, Patterson was sentenced to one year in state prison without the possibility of parole. This seems like a very harsh sentence, but taken in the context of the statement made by Colonel Patrick J. Callahan, State Police superintendent that “The conduct revealed in this investigation stands in stark contrast to the core values of the New Jersey State Police and is a betrayal to the public and to the entire law enforcement community”, perhaps the sentence was justified. What the New Jersey State Police did not do was promote Trooper Michael Patterson to the Superintendent of the State Police to prevent his prosecution. Trooper Patterson is a young black male.

Special Agent Ellen Ripperger is a middle aged white woman. The incident with Special Agent Ellen Ripperger is similar, but has some important differences which make the incident from a legal aspect far more serious. At issue in the Special Agent Ellen Ripperger incident is her conduct during a polygraph exam of a person with mental health issues disclosed in their security clearance paperwork. The allegation was Special Agent Ripperger accused the examinee of being a drug user, having committed of serious undetected crimes including arson, and utilizing information about the applicant’s disability against them during their exam, and other unprofessional conduct. A judge ordered the audio of this polygraph exam to be released which would have left no doubt as to what happened during the exam. The Secret Service produced an audio file with about three minutes of clarity with the remaining four hours sounding like a hurricane of static. The Secret Service claims this was due to a microphone failure, but that is in direct contradiction with the polygraph Quality Control worksheet signed by two special agents and a Quality Control Supervisor, all of whom certified the audio file existed and random checks were made throughout the recording to ensure its integrity. Significantly, the instrument Special Agent Ellen Ripperger utilized to conduct the polygraph examination had two fail safes that would notify the operator if the audio was not being recorded, or if any degradation was occurring during the recording. Absent some unbelievable circumstance, like the Soviets broke into the Secret Service Network and all they did was corrupt a single polygraph audio file, the audio file of this polygraph exam existed, was audible, and someone who had access to the Secret Service network destroyed it.

While Special Agent Ellen Ripperger’s incident is similar to State Police Trooper Michael Patterson incident, the matter simply isn’t the willful failure to produce a public record (recording), but the possibility Special Agent Ellen Ripperger may have destroyed or may have aided someone in destroying a record whose production was ordered by a judge. It is a much more serious allegation.

The question then becomes who had the most motivation to destroy the audio recording of this polygraph examination. If what was on the audio is what was alleged by the complainant, a reasonable conclusion might be Agent Ripperger had the greatest motivation to destroy the audio recording as its destruction would leave doubt as to what occurred during the polygraph examination as opposed to no doubt about whatever misconduct may have occurred. In fairness to Special Agent Ellen Ripperger, four Secret Service Agents came forward individually to provide numerous allegations and information to the complainant when the case against her was filed. When asked why they came forward, all of them stated they were veterans and they were sick of seeing the polygraph utilized to disqualify other veterans from Secret Service Employment due to conditions such as PTSD and depression which may have been caused by their military service. A few of the agents indicated the Secret Service viewed anyone (not just veterans) with a mental health condition as unfavorable, and the polygraph exam was the vehicle utilized to disqualify them. A couple of them indicated the polygraph was utilized for a process they sarcastically termed “1-800-FAVORS”, where if someone with a high political connections desired a job at the Secret Service, the polygraph could be utilized to disqualify other more qualified candidates. If those allegations are true, then the entire agency had a motivation to destroy the audio tape as well.

Instead of investigating Special Agent Ellen Ripperger, the Secret Service promoted her to a GS-14 instead. This promotion was contested as discrimination in the lawsuit FITZIG v. NIELSEN by long time Secret Service Agent Louis Fitzig, who alleged that he was not promoted because of his race, color, and prior protected activity. In the lawsuit, it is revealed that Special Agent Ellen Ripperger was only ranked seventh on the best qualified list, yet was selected for this position. It does not appear that the Secret Service disclosed during the lawsuit that Special Agent Ellen Ripperger was under investigation by OIG for potential misconduct at the time this lawsuit was filed, and it is unknown how such a disclosure may have affected the outcome of this case, but certainly it was pertinent. Indeed, it would be difficult to imagine a situation where someone who ranked seventh on the best qualified list and was at the center of an OIG investigation could possibly be the best qualified candidate for the position. This has all the hallmarks of position rigging, which if true, is illegal. Further, the sealed settlement in the FITZIG lawsuit is indicative the Secret Service has some degree of culpability they desired to mitigate. Mysteriously, the OIG investigation into Ripperger’s conduct seems to have disappeared just as quickly as the audio of the polygraph examination at issue in the EEOC lawsuit against the Secret Service.

On knowledge and belief based on information from a source alleging to be a Secret Service agent, Special Agent Ellen Ripperger was again promoted to a DSAC GS-15 (the highest possible civil service rank) in the Inspections Division.

The State of New Jersey provided a full public accountability of the State Police Trooper Michael Patterson incident on Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin’s webpage. The responsible state government officials made the following statements:

“We are committed to holding law enforcement officers accountable when they abuse their positions of trust. The New Jersey State Police expect the highest standards of conduct from their troopers, and the vast majority meet those standards each and every day. We owe it to the troopers, and to the public at large, to take strong action when individual officers betray those standards and engage in criminal conduct.” - Acting Attorney General Bruck.

“One of the primary missions of OPIA is to root out official misconduct that undermines faith in law enforcement and government. This is not the first time we have encountered this type of conduct involving a law enforcement officer, but we hope that our criminal prosecutions will deter such conduct going forward.” - OPIA Director Thomas Eicher.

“The New Jersey State Police holds its troopers to the highest level of professional standards of any law enforcement agency in the country through a robust system of checks and balances that is designed to not only hold its members accountable, but to serve as a tool to provide training and counseling through early intervention. The conduct revealed in this investigation stands in stark contrast to the core values of the New Jersey State Police and is a betrayal to the public and to the entire law enforcement community.” - Colonel Patrick J. Callahan, Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police.

Compare and contrast this to the actions of the United States Secret Service. They made no effort to conduct any type of investigation into how the audio of a polygraph examination whose production was ordered by a judge was destroyed while in their command and control. They claimed this was due to a “microphone failure”, but this microphone failure only came to light when Judge Eates ordered the Secret Service to produce the audio recording of the exam. The Secret Service did not disclose when the audio file was first requested in Discovery by Attorney Gagliardo that there was any issue with the recording of the exam. In fact, they provided audio files to the Complainant and Attorney Gagilardo that were virtually blank and never said a word about them being compromised. Attorney Gagliardo and his client were tipped off by a USSS Agent who called and told them they needed to listen to the audio files provided because they were blank. When the Secret Service Agent was asked if the audio file still existed, he started laughing and said, “That audio file will never see the light of day.” He further claimed the Secret Service expected Judge Eates to deny the request for the audio file for “national security reasons” and was distressed when Judge Eates ruled the Secret Service was claiming an overbroad reading of Department of the Navy v. Egan. He further claimed that knowing what was on the audio, someone within the Secret Service destroyed the audio tape rather than risk it going public.

If the audio file of the polygraph exam was really corrupted by a “microphone failure” that would be very easy to prove. The Secret Service could have had the THREE Special Agents who signed the quality control check list for the audio recording provide affidavits stating they never did check audio file at random intervals to ensure it was intact and audible as required. The Secret Service could have provided the records for servicing the polygraph machine. When a copy machine breaks at a federal agency, there is always a record for who fixed it and what was wrong. Certainly this would be true for a sensitive piece of national security equipment. The Secret Service could have provided invoices for the parts that were replaced. The Secret Service could have had the Lafayette Instrument Company provide an affidavit stating these type of audio problems were not uncommon with their machine. But the Secret Service did not of these things. Instead they provided an affidavit from Special Agent Ellen Ripperger stating it was a microphone failure and arguably she had the biggest motivation to destroy the audio.

In a courtroom decision that would have been expected in Belarus but unthinkable in the United States, Judge Eates sided with the Secret Service and “believed” the audio file was missing due to “a faulty microphone.” It did not matter the audio underwent quality control and three Secret Service agents certified the audio file was intact. It did not matter the Lafayette polygraph machines had two failsafes that confirmed the audio was functioning during the exam. It did not matter the Complainant and his attorney provided an affidavit from a polygraph expert who stated he had never witnessed an audio failure in the 2,500 polygraph examinations he had given. It did not matter the Complainant and his attorney provided an affidavit from an Electrical Engineer stating the microphone failure claimed was atypical, the failsafes on the polygraph instrument would have notified the examiner of any failure, and it would have been virtually impossible for the examiner not to know an audible recording was being made. It did not matter the Complainant and his attorney provided an affidavit from the Lafayette Instrument company outlining all the failsafes built into their instrument to prevent any such failure, and if such a failure did occur the software would display a pop up graphical user interface in the middle of the screen warning the examiner. The Secret Service did not provide a scintilla of evidence a microphone failure had occurred (other than Special Agent Ripperger’s affidavit, which is worth about as much as your mother saying you were home all night when someone was murdered), and the Complainant provided evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the audio was destroyed.

The Secret Service made no public statements regarding the incident. A review of the court documents demonstrates Secret Service attorneys made what most people would consider at best extremely misleading if not outright materially false statements to both the Judge and opposing counsel in this incident.