Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The question arises with more urgency than ever in light of the bizarrely illuminating case Armstrong v. Geithner. Though U.S. District Judge James Robertson on Monday dismissed claims by former special agent William H. Armstrong, Mr. Armstrong's charges still shed light on some real odd doings in the apparent snakepit that is the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

Armstrong, briefly, had his bid to become an Agriculture Department special agent undermined after a former Treasury Department co-worker sent anonymous letters attacking him. Judge Robertson ruled against Armstrong's claims that information protected by the Privacy Act had been utilized.

But look what the case unveiled:

In 2003, Armstrong led an investigation of a colleague named Rodney Davis. Davis later became Armstrong's supervisor. Armstrong then complained about Davis's managerial style and his sleeping on the job. Then, incredibly, Treasury assigns Davis to investigate Armstrong for supposedly accessing records. Noted the judge:

"Given this and other history between the two, the decision to assign Davis to investigate the plaintiff was odd."

It was further revealed at trial that a fellow Treasury Department investigator, Karen Thompson, took the time and trouble to write six separate letters critical of Armstrong. She claimed not to have access protected information for the writing of her letters. Retorted the judge:

"I found her testimony to be generally “evasive, dissembling, and not credible.”

Judge Robertson further observed that, while there was no evidence Thompson accessed private information, she did evidently tap the "rumor-mill that apparently goes virtually unchecked" at the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. It may be time to establish the Inspector General for the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration...