more breakaway march photos (1)

Ex-INS workers indicted in paper-shredding case
Up to 90,000 documents reportedly destroyed

John M. Broder, New York Times <http://sfgate.com/templates/types/gatemainpages/images/clear.gif> Friday, January 31, 2003 <http://sfgate.com/templates/brands/chronicle/images/chronicle.gif>

Los Angeles -- Two former employees of a huge Immigration and Naturalization Service data processing center in Laguna Niguel (Orange County) have been indicted by a federal grand jury, charged with deliberately shredding tens of thousands of documents from last February to April.

The employees, Dawn Randall, 24, and Leonel Salazar, 34, are accused of ordering low-level workers to destroy as many as 90,000 documents to reduce a growing backlog of unprocessed paperwork.

Among the destroyed papers, federal officials charged, were American and foreign passports, applications for asylum, birth certificates and other documents supporting applications for citizenship, visas and work permits.

Randall was the file room manager at the INS center, which handles paperwork for residents of California, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii and Guam. The center handles tens of thousands of pieces of mail a day and, like other agency operations, is plagued with inefficiency and backlogs lasting months. The Laguna Niguel center is one of four immigration service centers around the country operated by private contractors under INS supervision.

Salazar was a file room supervisor working under Randall.

According to the federal indictment filed late Wednesday, Randall ordered her subordinates last January to count the number of unprocessed papers in the filing center. They reported that about 90,000 documents were waiting to be handled. In February, the government says, she ordered at least five night- shift workers to begin shredding many boxes of papers.

By the end of March, the backlog had been reduced to zero, and Randall ordered her subordinates to continue destroying incoming paper to keep current,

the government alleges.

"There was no INS policy that required this, nor was she ordered to do it by any superior, as far as we know," said Greg Staples, the assistant U.S. attorney handling the case. "The only motive we can think of is just the obvious one of a manager trying to get rid of a nettlesome problem."

Randall and Salazar were each charged with conspiracy and five counts of willfully destroying documents filed with the INS. The conspiracy charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison. Each of the other counts can bring three years in prison.

Their subordinates were not charged because they were low-level workers acting on instructions, the government said.

Randall's attorney, Joseph Cavallo, said Thursday that she would plead not guilty at her arraignment on Monday.

Salazar's attorney, Tom Brown, did not return calls seeking comment.

NOW WHAT?

Editor -- I was interested to see The Chronicle now writing commentary on protest tactics (Editorial, "Keep the protests peaceful," Jan. 29). Welcome! Many in the local and peace communities are disturbed by violent tactics. However, stealing constitutional rights away, bit by bit, while at the same time justifying a slaughter to protect these rights, is also a form of violence.

I welcome tactics from The Chronicle -- we're holding our signs, we're marching, we're donating all the money we have. Now what? Congress openly ignores its constituents and votes for "war." Now what? Convicted criminals are holding top-level positions in the federal government. Now what? The INS has arrested and illegally detained hundreds of immigrants who entered their offices voluntarily. Its window got smashed.

VICTORIA ASHLEY

Oakland

I wrote that in annoyance with the Chronicle, and put in the fake part about welcoming their input into protests so they'd print it. They always fall for that sh**. They edited out the parts where I mentioned the voters taken off the rolls in 2000, and the unaccountable new voting machines, which I thought was telling.

"Mad Mikey" is out of here. All future posts and comments by "Mad Mikey " will be removed immediately. As of now, "Mad Mikey" is no longer allowed to post here. He is allowed to post anywhere else on the net that he can get away with, but not here. This is because he is ugly and his mother dresses him funny. Goodbye, Mikey. Have fun under your rock.

because I think we need to think like advertisers, to present the argument to the public that absolute pacifism doesn't necessarily have a successful history in getting powerful people to do the right thing. And part of the problem is the way in which this is presented, and the words that are chosen. The US does have a history of nonviolent political protest that one doesn't see in some other countries.

But the typical member of the public is not true advocate of pacifism in political affairs. Almost half of households are supposed to possess guns for self defense, and the people who do support armed intervention often argue that they are just being realistic and that one can only deal with a dictator with force. So demonstrating that tactics in addition to standing with a sign in a permitted time and place historically have sometimes been necessary to achieve the democratic will won't be entirely foreign to everyone. We just can't present it like the Chronicle does, that the antiauthoritarians are 'pro violence' or that 'pacifism is always pathological'.