The following is a collection of relevant and notable events. This will be updated as events happen.

• I had been reporting ADA violations by Patrick Eustis (in web-design, Section 508 and WCAG 2.0). See: Jira Tickets www-1276 and pm-32.

• Patrick Eustis was hired in a new position, that was not announced such that nobody else was given an opportunity to apply for the job, violating Equal Opportunity Employment (Witnessed by Tina Fuselier).

• I sent a grievances complaint to Stanley Hippler, my immediate supervisor, and Chad Thibodeaux, the Chief Technical Officer, on how I felt Patrick's actions since my reporting of problems has led me to feel that I was being harassed.

• My grievances complaint appeared to have been ignored, so I sent a second e-mail asking why I was not being responded to.

• I contacted Charlene Abbot, Director of Human Resources, to get my grievances responded to because multiple members in the chain of command were ignoring my complaints (namely Stan Hippler and Chad Thibodeaux).

• Andrew Mapley and Patrick Eustis both decided not to attend the regular meetings set forth by the grievances resolution overseen by Charlene Abbots.

• Patrick Eustis decided to put the regular meetings (the ones assigned by the grievances resolution) to a vote between him, me, and Andrew Mapley that they did not have to attend. I complained to Stan Hippler and Stan said that they did not have to attend these meetings set forth by the grievances resolution (in direct contrast to the resolution).

• Patrick Eustis continued violating ADA (and other policies and procedures). Specifically, there is a case that had multiple violations in ADA, policies, and security that was bad enough that I had to report it with emphasis (In Jira ticket). These violations are relatively easy to spot an avoid so there should be no undue burden to follow them and yet he continues to blatantly ignore and violate them.

• I was called into a private meeting between Chad Thibodeaux, Stan Hippler, and Me. They questioned me about what issues I had with Patrick Eustis and I repeated the problems about his violations of policies, procedures, security, and ADA (many of these problems were the same problems I outlined in my original harassment complaint). I also asked if we could meet to resolve any issues. I was flat-out denied (with emphasis). Chad told me that I must not do anything different (which means I had to follow ADA) but Patrick did not have to follow any such policies or procedures. This means that if I followed policy and ADA I had to deny Patrick's changes but if I listened to Chad and Stan then I had to violate the policies, procedures, and ADA. I was also flat-out denied any meetings or involving in discussions to resolve any misunderstandings that directly involved my job and its duties. I chose the more ethical route of following ADA (Section 508, WCAG 2, etc..). Chad Thibodeaux also mentioned another Web Team that I was not allowed to be part of that directly relates to by job duties.

• I was subsequently removed from the Web Team, and put on another project that did not involve my job duties, in what I believe to be retaliation for following the Section 508 and WCAG 2.0 ADA requirements and policies set forth by McNeese State University (This did not remove me from the other web related projects, like the Facilities Use System because it is not a web team project).
  • Of particular note is that I was hired as a programmer but now they are specifically telling me that I was not allowed to do any programming for this new project.
  • Feeling that I was in a hostile work environment, I started recording meetings that I had with Stan Hippler (he never sends e-mails and always calls people into his office privately).
• Specifically see recording “Rec-2017-06-07-08-06-34.ogg”:
• At about 28 minutes into the recording/meeting, Stan Hippler starts going on a rant that the work I am involved in, specifically open-source (which is a category of a copyright license), is associated with “chemical terrorism” (that is a quote). He then repeats it in different ways and insists upon it. This shocked me, but at the time I thought he was being eccentric and dismissed it.

• Feeling the workplace hostility and having my complaints being explicitly ignored by the chain of command in what appears to be some sort of favoritism, I started considering leaving the my job at the university. I informed George Bodin of this because I was actively involved in a non-web-team project for him (the Facilities Use System).

• During this day, I saw Stan Hippler and he made no notions that anything was wrong or that I had done anything wrong. I was called into Charlene Abbot's office, with Stan Hippler, and was told that my position was being immediately terminated with no reason specified. (I recorded this entire meeting). Other than the meeting about my ADA complaints, I have had no complaints of conduct (or any complaints at all) and I have an above average annual progress report (see annual progress report). See recording: “Rec-2017-07-18-09-04-02.ogg”.

• Immediately after the meeting, I went straight home, exactly as instructed by Charlene Abbot (see Rec-2017-07-18-09-04-02.ogg). While there, an unknown police officer knocked at my door and delivered a Bar Order, barring me from all university locations and activities. The Bar Order was incorrectly filled out and had no reason specified on the Bar Order as to why. The Bar Order itself had only 2 spots for a reason, 1) Violence, 2) Unlawful Action. Neither of which I had done, so neither was filled out (There are other mistakes on the form as well.). Even that officer said that this was unusual and he that did not understand why this was being issued.

• I read the Bar Order policy and believed that their actions are in violation of the bar order policy. According to the policy, I had to contact Robert Spinks. I went to the university police station to ask what I was being accused of so that I could make an appeal. I could not get Robert Spinks to meet me, and a Lieutenant was sent to talk to me instead. I had to show the Lieutenant the Bar Order policy to make him realize that I had to report to Robert Spinks as described in the policy. I was given the run-around as far as I could tell, so I wrote and sent an e-mail to Robert Spinks.

• Within 1 hour of my e-mail, Robert Spinks responded to my e-mail with the following summarized statements:
  1. He had an opportunity to review the Bar Order and the background behind its issuance.
  2. The university exercised its rights to bar me and that this was standard policy and I should contact Human Resources.
  3. I did not have to be involved in any act of violence or aggression but I should review my conduct.
  4. They try to be proactive about these kinds of things.
  5. No response was given to my request for reasons for the bar order.
  6. He claimed that I should think about my recent conduct.
• What comes to my mind is the following:
  1. He was able to review a bar order and write this response within 1 hour, when I have no history of violence and have neither harassed nor threatened anyone. I did not even refuse the tasks given to me despite the most recent ones being outside the my usual duties and very questionable.
  2. According to Charlene Abbots, the Director of Human Resources, this was very much not standard policy. This means that either Charlene or Robert is lying. Numerous other former McNeese personnel have had similar or greater “special security” who were not barred, including (but not limited) to Tina Fuselier, Jason Bartlin, Dr. Phillip Williams, and Dan Boitnot. Furthermore, Patrick Eustis has, in violation of policies, granted administrative access to users without any appropriate clearance to do so without any bar orders being issued (see Jira tickets).
  3. The policy seems to be pretty clear and straightforward to me that yes, yes they do need to be involved in an action of violence or aggression to receive a bar order.
  4. “Pre-crime?” I am being treated as a criminal without any defense, any proof, or having done anything wrong? I believe this to be a violation of my constitutional rights.
  5. I am trying to ask what I did wrong, seeing as no one will tell me. This tells me that they do not have a reason or they do not want to state that it is for calling out ADA violations and feelings of harassment by their very clearly favored personnel (Patrick Eustis).
  6. My recent conduct was reporting ADA violations, other than that I have done nothing nor have any complaints be made to me. Not to mention that I have an above average annual performance review that shows I have done nothing wrong and I have a long history of non-aggression.

• I was technically still an employee until the end of the day, so I filed an internal discrimination charge with the Chief Diversity Officer, Michael Snowden. I had Charlene Abbott escort me to his office because I feared that the police would attempt to set me up in some way, given their current behavior. At least that way I would have a witness should something occur. Of particular note, I was going through shock this entire month between the loss of the job and the unlawful use of a bar order to harass me or a bar order issued against me for false association with chemical terrorism.

• Michael Snowden finally processed the charges, but the charges he processed were not the ones I submitted. While I had mentioned Patrick, Stan, and Chad (or really the chain of command because I wanted to include whomever was responsible for the unlawful bar order, which now appears to be Robert Spinks). Michael Snowden ignored most of my complaint and filed an anti-bullying policy violation against only Stan Hippler (essentially he rewrote my complaint to suite his whim).

• I was informed by, James L. Arruebarrena that I needed to file a complaint using the EEOC form and that the actions that I described may even be constitutional violation of my civil liberties (Section 1983). I filed a Discrimination complaint form with the EEOC (signed on August 6, 2017). It was delivered, in person, at the New Orleans office with William Day as a witness.

• I provided supplemental information to Michael Snowden, mentioning how I sent an e-mail to George Bodin about my hostile work environment. I included information on where to find 3 to 10 years of supporting evidence, showing my consistent patterns and that treatment I was given by all of the parties. Referring to, of course, relevant information, such as being assigned to maintain a system that was already hacked and used to cause harm to others while simultaneously denying me the approval to properly resolve the issue. I referenced the git.mcneese.edu system, which contains numerous activity logs that include evidence of Patrick's involvement (and lack thereof) where appropriate. I also mentioned the wiki.mcneese.edu, where I provided detailed information on my projects (proving how far out of my way I went to help and assist everybody I am involved with, including Patrick Eustis). I futhermore mentioned how Chad Thibodeaux had claimed that my calling out Patrick Eustis' violations were angry or hostile (despite my utter lack of hostility and anger).

• I received a response to an inquiry I made.

• I received a letter from the University President, Dr. Daryl V. Burckel, stating that they found that Stan Hippler did not bully me. The complaint I filed was not against Stan Hippler, it was against Stan Hippler, Chad Thibodeaux, Patrick Eustis, and other McNeese Senior Staff. The actual complaint is a discrimination complaint and not a bullying complaint. The letter is dated September 8, 2017.

• I sent an e-mail to the EEOC asking what the status of my charge was. The e-mail is designated Incident: 170918-000375.

• I sent an e-mail to disability.affairs@la.gov asking for assistance on this matter. Having heard no response, I can only assume to being ignored.

• I sent an e-mail to the University President stating that this was not the complaint that I had filed. The President responded that he would forward this and respond once he gets a response. I have yet to receive any response.

• I received an e-mail response from the EEOC, in regards to incident 170918-000375, confirming that my charge was received on September 8, 2017. I was informed that the process may take a while (essentially be patient). I was also informed that I may receive an official EEOC charge form to review and sign.
• I also received a very suspicious call from somebody claiming to be “Federal Investigator Luis” from the number (504) 595-2863. This individual was hostile and falsifying statements immediately after I made a statement. I became increasingly suspicious and asked if I could have some identifying information. He refused to give me any information other than that he is the only investigator with his name. Furthermore, he spent most of his type worrying about being recorded and little to no time about my actual case. By the end of the conversation, I felt that this guy is a fraud. He claimed that the EEOC does not handle cases of retaliation for complaining about harassment, retaliation about reporting ADA violations, or discrimination by denying equal opportunity employment. The very last one is absurd, because they are literally have the Equal Opportunity Employment in their agency name! He also told me that because I am filing against a State agency that I had to file at the state level, not the Federal level. Furthermore, the actions against me should be filed with the Department of Justice. This so called Federal Investigator further refused to provide the official response to my official filing.
• I the contacted James L. Arruebarrena about this strange contact and James (strangely) suddenly started claiming that he did not understand my case (despite having previously described, in slight detail, such as the Constitutional violation in regards to Section 1983 of my Civil Liberties).
• In case “Federal Investigator Luis” was not a fraud, I sent a certified mail (with return receipt request) (USPS #7016-3560-001-0318-8207) to the Office of the Governor, Louisiana Commission on Human Rights. At a later date, I received an unsigned and undated return receipt while the tracking code showed a different zip code than the one I mailed. Contacting the USPS, they directly said that certified mail sometimes does not get to the correct address and that the return receipts somehow get lost. They claimed that they would give me a refund and never did so. This is very suspicious behavior.

• In case “Federal Investigator Luis” was not a fraud, I sent a certified mail (with return receipt request) (USPS #7016-3560-001-0325-1611)) to the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section. The return receipt I received was signed and dated on October 10, 2017.

• I mailed my original Whistleblower Retaliation form to the Louisiana Board of Ethics (USPS #7016-3560-001-0327-4757), with a return receipt requested. The return receipt I received was returned signed, but undated and was delivered to the correct zip code.

• A letter was sent to me from the University President, Dr. Daryl V. Burkel, regarding my complaint that was e-mailed on September 20, 2017. The University President asked if I wanted the Grievance Committee to review my complaint, independent of my termination, despite the fact that Discrimination complaints, do in fact, allow for termination being revoked.

• The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, wrote me a letter (signed by Linda A. Garrett, specialist in the Disability Rights Section) advised me that these issues should be sent to the EEOC and also went out of their way to send a letter to the EEOC. They assigned this case DJ# 205-33-0.

• Michael T. Snowden sent me an e-mail with the list of the Grievance Committee members. The members included: Michael Roach, Steve Thompson, Tara Chaumont, Debbie Johnston, and George Bodin. George Bodin was removed and replaced with Tanner Stines due to a conflict of interest. (I much later (January 10, 2018) received an e-mail from Wayne Thompson who claimed to be the chairman of the Grievance Committee.)
• The New Orleans Field office of the EEOC wrote me a letter (Signed by Kellie Light, Secretary of Field Management Programs), in regards to the case forwarded to them by the DOJ. Kellie Light told me that I needed to file a Discrimination charge with the New Orleans branch of the EEOC. Which is strange, because I did and they should have a copy. What happened to my case?

• I sent a letter, asking for assistance with the EEOC (due to the suspicious phone call) to Senator. Bill Cassidy. I used USPS certified mail with return receipt, USPS #7017-1450-002-2978-6577). I have never received any response.

• The Louisiana Board of Ethics sent me a letter (Signed by Deborah S. Grier), informing me that my docket would be tentatively scheduled for the December 14, 2017 meeting (docket number 2017-1205).
• The Louisiana Commission on Human Rights sent me a letter (Signed by Dr. Leah Raby, Executive Director, LCHR) stating that because my case is against a State agency, that I should file at the Federal level. Which is strange, because it directly contradicts what “Federal Investigator Luis” stated. Not only that, they sent me a written, official, response. This gives me the impression that the New Orleans EEOC branch, or this so-called “Federal Investigator Luis” may somehow be unlawfully involved in the my retaliation case.

• Michael T. Snowden sent me an e-mail telling me that the committee was asking for the other recordings. I had given Snowden the information to retrieve all of the recordings from my e-mails (which are archived by Federal law). I replied and reminded Snowden that I already have given him the information on where to find and how to retrieve the recordings. Snowden asked for me to burn the recordings to a CD myself and drop them off at the university police station. This is strong evidence that Snowden did not review all of the evidence that I provided, giving me reason to believe that he intentionally ignored significantly relevant evidence (such as the recordings).

• I dropped off a DVD of the audio recordings at the university police station and information Michael T. Snowden.

• I sent an e-mail to the EEOC asking to receive the official response from the Discrimination filing that I made on August 8, 2017. I also asked for my “Notice of Right to Sue” form. This e-mail was designated: Incident: 171128-000077.

• I received a response from the “EEOC Intake Information Group” claiming that they did not have access to the specific charge I am referring to. They also suggested that I contact the field office directly.

• I received an e-mail from the chairman of the Grievances Committee, Dr. Wayne Thompson. The letter asked me about scheduling a meeting in person or via the Internet in regards to my case.

• Dr. Wayne Thompson and I concluded to meet on January 25 at 2:00pm via an Internet service.

• I met with the Grievance Committee and learned that they were not investigating my Discrimination complaint and, in fact, had never even seen my Discrimination complaint. Furthermore, they were not allowed to address my issues nor did they have access to significant evidence in regards to my complaint (such as how every single Annual Performance review I had was above average and had very good remarks). At this point, I realized that I had spent all this time working with McNeese State University to try to resolve my issues through the proper methods only to be treated like trash. Not only did they not have to follow ADA regulations, EEOC regulations, or even their own policies, but they could not only terminate me without consequences for reporting harassment and reporting violations but they could also rewrite and ignore every complaint I send. Supposedly, the Grievances Committee will be sending me a response, but I do not believe it will have any credibility because McNeese State University is very likely ignoring, rewriting, withholding, or destroying the evidence that I provided and the complaints that I have made.

• I have written this update and have not yet received any further documents from any agency. Specifically, I have not heard from McNeese State University nor the New Orleans EEOC office.

• I have mailed a notarized FOIA request (Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552) to McNeese.

• McNeese State University received my FOIA request that was mailed out on March 19, 2018. It was signed by LeJeune at 10:29 AM.

• I received a response to my March 19, 2018 FOIA request from Eddie P. Meche, McNeese Vice President. He stated that McNeese would respond to my request within 20 business days of March 21, 2018.

• I was informed that my mailbox has received a package from McNeese (USPS tracking 70153010000215073607). I picked up the package on April 24, 2018. The package is the response to my FOIA request.
• The response failed to supply any of the e-mails in electronic format.
• The response failed to supply any of the jabber/pidgin messages.
• They pointed out that I sent a Federal FOIA request and they are not bound by it as a Federal request but instead must follow the State laws for FOIA requests.
• They provided my personal file history, which was included in my request, at no charge.
• They claimed that they would charge for printing my e-mails and that it would be more expensive than $100.
  • I would note that the request directly stated that if the cost would go over $100, then to immediately stop and immediately contact me (which, based on the date of response, they did not do so).
• I requested information on Patrick Eustis' Job posting for the position that I have reason to believe was never announced (and witnessed by Tina Fuselier). They provided false information in regards to this and have provided a document claiming that it is Patrick Eustis' job. In fact, the job listing is dated 09/15/2017, and is my job position as it was at McNeese State University. The person hired into this position is a Michael Redlich, who never worked there before and whom I have never met.
• They response contained my discrimination complaint. (This confirms that they do have it, did not destroy it, but also did not follow my complaint.)

• I notarized a Louisiana Public Records Act § 44:1 et seq document (State FOIA Request) in response to McNeese's response to my previous Federal FOIA request.
• Should be the correct form.
• It emphasizes providing the documents in electronic format.
• References that the provided Job posting that I received from McNeese is clearly incorrect (it is Michael Redlich's job posting).
  • I further emphasize that the requested posting is the one from the winter of 2015.
• I made the Expedited Processing request statement bold to be more emphasized.
• Used a more correct format for a notary public signature than my previous request.

• McNeese State University has received by State FOIA Request, Louisiana Public Records Act § 44:1 et seq.
• The package was signed by a Williams at 10:46 AM.
• Package was shipped (and the FOIA Request was notarized by) the UPS Store and has a tracking code of 1Z251AE40303816592.

• 5 business days have passed with no response to my May 1, 2018 FOIA request.
• McNeese State University has failed to comply with Section 44:32(D) of the Louisiana Public Records Act.
• I sent a an e-mail on Wed, 9 May 2018 18:55:02 -0500 to dburckel@mcneese.edu and emeche@mcneese.edu to remind them that they have failed to comply and hope for an e-mail response.

• No e-mail response has been received from McNeese State University in regards to my May 9, 2018 e-mail on their failure to comply within the three business day deadline.

• I received a physical mail in response to my FOIA request, dated May 7, 2018. Eddie P. Meche claims that there are a lot of e-mails and it would exceed $100.

• After research and review, I responded to the May 12, 2018 FOIA response. I clarified my initial response to ensure spam mail does not get included.

• I received a response to my May 23, 2018 FOIA response. Of particular note is that they state “..the University has no recorded Jabber/Pidgin communications between Patrick Eustis and Andrew Mapley in 2016 and 2017”. Which is interesting because I have documented evidence of just that in the Jira and e-mail logs as admitted by Andrew Mapley.

• I notarized a signed and sworn to legal document Pursuant to LSA R.S. 42:1169.
• The notarized document was copied to a dvd along with evidence and submitted along with the legal documents is secured using the sha256 checksum bd1ee70e815ef920d0c6d42be9523209187d07858dd944196a901a5c15b71f93.

• I received an acknowledgement receipt dated June 28, 2018 (docket number 2018-775) from the Louisiana Board of Ethics in response to my legal document Pursuant to LSA R.S. 42:1169.
• I would like to note that the Louisiana Board of Ethics has yet to bring docket number 2017-1205 to their meetings.
• I would further note that docket number 2018-776 was received by the Louisiana Board of Ethics on the same day they received mine and they brought it to their meeting but have ignored mine (see: August 16, 2018 Meeting and Docket Number 2018-776).

• I provided legal documents in specifically in regards to the MSU police color of law violations to both the FBI and the DOJ for their respective responsibilities in regards to the numerous violations by Robert Spinks.
• This contains the same design and structure as Pursuant to LSA R.S. 42:1169, but focuses on the violations by the MSU Police.
• The notarized document was copied to a dvd along with evidence and submitted along with the legal documents to the FBI is secured using the sha256 checksum 7a06fa34a81bc073b7770721a82c703aa18b876abce91681519869245ce2e282.
• The notarized document was copied to a dvd along with evidence and submitted along with the legal documents to the DOJ is secured using the sha256 checksum 8b3b0bcbe0c709ef48c09fc981786421e54c78c1b1931180cda3dd75946d548c.

• I received 2 e-mails from Eddie Meche, CPA (Vice President for Business Affairs and University Services).
• The e-mails contain a very small number of e-mails in response to my FOIA request.

• I received physical mail from DeCUIR, Clark & Adams, L.L.P., representing some of the FOIA response e-mails on a DVD.
• The DVD contains incorrect e-mails that is very clearly and obviously not part of what was requested.
• The DVD lacks a significant amount of e-mails.
• The DVD does not contain any of the other information, such as Patrick Eustis' job position on the dates that were requested.
• The DVD does not contain a list of what was omitted (if any) nor why anything was omitted.
• The DVD has a sha256 checksum of f850a37ec2d1000950054c0f873fb14913825d3200ec29321a47d984b137ef75.

• I received a response from Suzanne Quinla Mooney of the Louisiana Board of Ethics claiming that Docket No. 2018-775 was reviewed on August 16, 2018.
• They claimed that they were already investigating this according to docket no 2017-1205 and would consolidate 2018-775 into 2017-1205.

• I sent an amendment to 2018-775/2017-1205 to help clarify what was described in 2018-775.
• 2018-775 is a complaint filing and is not a request for advisory opinion that 2017-1205 is.
• I stated that I trust that by “folding” 2018-775 into 2017-1205 meant that 2017-1205 is now a complaint filing.
• The first DVD copy I made had an invalid checksum due to my DVD burner failing.
• After buying a new DVD burner, I recreated the checksum and confirmed its validity.
• The (correct) DVD has a sha256 checksum of 56809ef9b601e255ed8a7a00d2707abb28f08dbc07f2e54c0334504ba5d6baae.

• I received a phone call from a Joel Manuel in regards to my whistleblower retaliation filing.
• Joel claimed to not have received any of the evidence I provided (which was sent by tracking and is ensured by the checksums).
• I sent Joel an e-mail on October 24, 2018 containing a small piece of the evidence.
• see

• I once again send an FOIA Request to McNeese State University because they failed to fully and properly comply with my previous request.
• I complained how they improperly omitted evidence.

• I received a letter from DeCUIR, CLark & ADAMS, L.L.P, in response to my November 11, 2018 request, where they lie about having fulling complied with my FOIA request.
• They do not seem to be aware that I have proof of their fraud given that I've requested information that I already have or already have evidence showing such records exist.

• I re-mailed all of the evidence (along with updates) that was previously sent that Joel claims to not have received (UPS tracking number 1z251ae40397543326).
• I then called Joel and he claimed that he did not receive the e-mail that I sent in October.
• The DVD of evidence has a sha256 checksum of 2f52086540e0368042dd354559f759c675dccdae1eda7248fd6939b8eae74cce

• UPS tracking information shows that 1z251ae40397543326 was received on 11/21/2018 at 20:04 am and signed by Victorian.

• I was sent a copy of letters sent to Stan Hippler and Chad Thibodeaux where the Lousiana Board of Ethics fraudelently claims not to have the evidence that I submitted (and that they signed for on November 21, 2018).
• They decided to close the case due to insufficient evidence despite having been provided the extreme opposite.

• My first attempt at an Administrative appeal is to (not knowing who above McNeese should handle this) is to the Louisiana Board of Regents.
• I filed a complaint about McNeese State Universities failure to comply with the FOIA Request and provide reasons why (citing that I have evidence proving the existence of such records).