I found this OIG report on the FBI including “Ruby Ridge”. And how the DOJ and FBI refuse to implement the suggestions in 2002 and still do todayread the whole report and this chapter anons

A Review of Allegations of a Double Standard of Discipline at the FBI

November 15, 2002

Office of the Inspector General

CHAPTER FIVE: RUBY RIDGE

…The disciplinary decision in the Ruby Ridge incident has been cited as an example of a double standard in the FBI. We believe that substantial problems marred the original investigation of the Ruby Ridge incident and the disciplinary process that took almost nine years to come to an end. Allegations arose that the FBI investigators who looked into what happened at Ruby Ridge intentionally or negligently conducted poor investigations resulting in a cover-up of misconduct by FBI officials. Although the motivation of the FBI investigators has never been clearly resolved, the evidence brought forth by later investigations showed that the original investigations conducted by the FBI were significantly flawed, perhaps to protect senior officials. These flawed investigations affected the disciplinary decisions.

Following years of subsequent investigations and retirements, only a few officials who were under investigation for the cover-up portion of the case were left to have their cases adjudicated. These final disciplinary decisions were assigned to and decided by JMD, and therefore the final decisions, to the extent that there is disagreement with them, cannot be blamed on the FBI's protection of senior officials. Although we disagree with the ultimate JMD decision, we do not believe that the JMD officials involved were part of a systemic effort to protect senior FBI officials. Rather, we believe that JMD used an incorrect standard in evaluating the evidence. We also believe that the disciplinary actions in Ruby Ridge contributed to the continued perception of a double standard of discipline in the FBI.

Although the original Ruby Ridge incident has been well documented and discussed, the tortured aftermath has not been disclosed previously in one report. We believe that a recitation of the internal investigations and disciplinary process can shed light on what has, up to now, been a process shrouded in secrecy. Accordingly, we explain in some detail the events from Ruby Ridge to the final disciplinary decisions.

Chronology of Events in the Ruby Ridge Investigations

https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/archive/special/0211/chapter5.htm

>>19576692

__A Review of Allegations of a Double Standard of Discipline at the FBI__November 15, 2002

Office of the Inspector General

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Background

This report examines complaints from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) employees alleging that the FBI's system of discipline was unfair because FBI senior managers were treated more leniently than rank and file employees. In particular, members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) were alleged to receive light or no discipline while lower-level employees were treated more harshly for similar offenses. Among the concerns was that the FBI used a separate disciplinary system for SES members in which other SES members sat in judgment of their SES colleagues.

In 1999 the FBI's Law Enforcement Ethics Unit (LEEU), a division of the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), conducted an analysis to determine whether the FBI had such a "double standard" of discipline. The LEEU examined statistics on misconduct investigations and the discipline imposed for SES and non-SES employees. The LEEU also examined the outcome of several cases involving investigations of senior managers for various alleged acts of misconduct. In September 1999, the LEEU issued an internal report stating that it had concluded that senior FBI managers received different and more favorable treatment than other employees….

OIG Investigation and Report

In order to review the allegations of a double standard of discipline in the FBI, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) first reviewed the LEEU double standard report and carefully examined the cases it put forward as examples of a double standard. We also reviewed more recent cases in which SES-level employees were disciplined. In addition, we thoroughly reviewed the investigation and discipline in the "Ruby Ridge" and "Potts retirement party" cases, two well-known cases that generated significant controversy inside and outside the FBI about the discipline imposed on FBI employees. During our review, we interviewed many FBI officials involved with the disciplinary process, including the authors of the LEEU double standard report, and many FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) managers.

Chapter Five, we also describe the bonuses and promotions that the FBI awarded to subjects of the Ruby Ridge internal investigationswhile those investigations were still pending. In Chapter Six, we describe our overall conclusions and recommendations as to the FBI's disciplinary process.1

Summary of OIG Conclusions

In sum,we did not find sufficient evidence to conclusively establish that the FBI systematically favors SES members in the discipline process. Because of the low number of cases involving SES members, we could not reach such a conclusion based on a comparison of similar cases. Moreover, differences in individual facts made it difficult to fairly compare cases. Another impediment to conducting a definitive comparison is the fact that legal requirements restrict the discipline that can be imposed on members of the SES throughout the government…

We did conclude, however, that the FBI suffered and still suffers from a strong, and not unreasonable, perceptionamong employees that a double standard exists within the FBI. This perception was fostered in large part by the existence of a dual system of discipline that existed prior to August 2000, in which SES members were judged only by other SES members. Furthermore, our review describes several troubling cases in which the discipline imposed for SES employees appeared unduly lenient and less severe than discipline in similar cases involving non-SES employees. In particular, FBI senior managers were not fired or harshly disciplined in either the Ruby Ridge or Potts retirement party cases. We believe that in these cases, FBI senior managers were afforded different and more favorable treatment than less senior FBI employees would have received. These cases, which were well known within the FBI, fed the perception that senior managers were treated more favorably than subordinate employees….

We are still concerned, however, that to the extent the new system still provides SES members with a right of appeal of discipline to a board made up of three SES members, one of whom the appellant selects,

https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/archive/special/0211/chapter1.htm#I

>>19576692

Report Attached, this report has inconsistencies as it was done in 1994

==U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

REPORT OF THE RUBY RIDGE TASK FORCE==

TO THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

OF INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS

OF IMPROPER GOVERNMENTAL CONDUCT IN THE INVESTIGATION,

APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF RANDALL C. WEAVER AND KEVIN L. HARRIS

JUNE 10, 1994

REPORT