120 replies to this topic

[Thor God of Thunder]

PRETEXT -  How do you prove pretext?

You have to show that the reasons given by ATF to justify the action are not credible. How do you do that?

     a.  Prove that the responsible management official (rmo) is lying or has lied in the case.
     b.  Prove with omissions by the rmo that they are lying or their reasoning is suspect or unreliable.
     c.  Prove with rmo's own testimony that they did not follow procedure.
     d.  Prove with contradicting statements of the rmol with other official, specifically dealing with the business reasons
     e.  Prove that different reasons were given at different times by same rmo or agency
     f.   Use email evidence
     g.  Keep notes, logs and other documentation
     h.  Use prima facie case and other evidence to prove pretext.
     i.   Use testimony and document evidence to corroborate your allegations.

I hope this helps one and all that have a case going out there!

[Jaime3]

Talking about conflict of interest, it's rather odd how ATF contracts their Investigators to investigate EEO allegations and contracts their  people who perform Depositions.
If these people have a contract, what are they capable of saying or doing to keep their contract?

How would anyone be any wiser, unless they personally recorded the Deposition and Investigator.
Ooorrr, maybe someone has and is waiting to drop that one on ATF.  

[Jaime3]

This article should spread like a wildfire up to Congress because this is what's exactly going on in ATF.  Keep spreading the news!

It would be nice if this journalist had an example.
I'm sure there are lots of examples among the CleanUp crew!

[ProConfesso]

Hear this  ATF Counsels Office

http://www.federalti...dvice & Opinion

[Thor God of Thunder]

Thor God of Thunder, on 21 May 2011 - 08:32 AM, said:

The motion of summary judgment is the thing that everyone seems to be unable to survive.

Anyone out there knows how to respond to a motion of summary judgment?  What needs to be done and does anyone have a successful go-by?

How is it survived?  They count on the fact that the lawyers know and we do not.

The motion of summary judgment is survived when you provide evidence of conflicting statements or witness credibility, especially the ATF lying officials.  ATF does not need LOOS what hey need is to stop their illegal activities.

[Jaime3]

You noticed the FAAP haven't met back up in the 6 months.  Nor has anybody heard about a replacement for the Acting Director.  I'm sure the reigns will slide over to Brandon and Eleanor Loos will be Deputy Director.

The Agency wouldn't need all these damn groups if they punished people accordingly.
But the rules amongst Agency staff differs, depending on your friendships.

[VINCENT A CEFALU]

Apparently, Mr. Brandon and Turk have surrendered to Chief counsel and are prepared to turn the agency's future back over to Ms. Loos and crew. Ms. Loos is and has been the SINGLE most destructive force related to field Agents and employees. When she allowed Richard Hurst to quietly slide over to TSA after submitting false documents in the Jessen case, She should have been fired and possibly disbarred. After continuously creating an environment of ATF sponsored Reprisal and Hostile work environment, she should have been canned. What is Mr. Jones, Brandon and Turks response? One step forward, three steps back. Put her back in ethics and administration. SERIOUSLY? 50 attorneys to choose from and thats your choice after you have MOUNDS of PROOF of her unethical conduct?  What an absolute SLAM to the FAAP.

[Fedupwrkr]

YES!

[Jay A. Dobyns]

That is tremendous!  Yes, they will lie, cheat and steal (and lie for each other) to win.  You have seen it and experienced it.  Most who have not gone through it cannot believe how low they are willing to sink to win or mitigate a complaint they know they are dirty on.  Truth and justice has absolutely nothing to do with.  I don't know who you are, Latina, but I am proud of you that you stood up the bully, looked him in the eye, socked him in the mouth and stole is lunch money.

The ones they are truly fearful of are the ones who refuse to be intimidated.  When you are willing to fight and have the truth on your side, you are dangerous.  They trample the rest of the sheep.

Stand up for yourselves and each other.

If they will so willingly lie and cover up about Brian Terry, they will do it to you.  If they will do it to you, they will do it to your partner.  If they will do it to your partner, they will do it to someone in your group or task force.  They will do it about your family, friends and peers.

Until they start showing even a modest level of righteousness, we are all we got.

PS: Don't get sucked into the mediation game.  If you participate (sometimes you have to under an order from the court) know that there is no such thing as "good faith" with ATF.  Been there and done that twice and each time, it was a complete and utter joke of an experience.  Total waste of time and nothing more than ATF's free shot at intimidation.  They punch the mediation ticket just to be able to tell the judge they tried to resolve the dispute but the reality is, they have no intention to mediate or play fair.  They don't know how to do that.

Educated Latina, on 17 August 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

I just recently won my EEO case against some of the worst managers ATF has ever hired.  They lied and stuck together in their joint efforts to win their case.  However, they underestimated an educated Latina!

• I documented everything!
  
• I carried a journal with me at all times.
  
• I recorded conversations and meetings.
  
• I printed my emails.
  
• I collected my own statements.
  
• I had my recordings transcribed.
  
• I was calm, cool and collected.
  
• I stayed professional.
  
• I hired an attorney.
  
• I did my research and never let management get away with anything.

They are not "God" and mean nothing...nothing but a joke!  If you are involved in an EEO battle, do all the above and then hire an attorney.  They will shake in their panties.   Take charge of your situation, don't let it take charge of you.  If you must quit, then quit.

[Doc Holiday]

madea, on 27 June 2012 - 05:45 AM, said:

Attention anyone who has a pending discrimination complaint - the agency has an important deadline to meet. AFTER you file the Formal Complaint, the agency must complete it’s investigation within 180 days. If your complaint has passed the 180 days, you should immediately send a request for a hearing to the nearest EEOC. You can find your EEOC office at EEOC.gov.

DO NOT wait pass the 180 days to take action on this. You will be making the situation worse. Additional acts will be taken against you and the EEOC Judge will question YOU as to why you waited to ask for a hearing.

VISITING is dead on. Pay Attention and you will force the agency to play by the rules. And they are NOT very good at that.
Be aware that there are TWO show-cause orders issued at this time to the agency asking why there should not be sanctions imposed. Both of these show-cause orders involve ATF ignoring deadlines. Maybe the EEOC is FINALLY fed up with the negligence of Stacy Brouckman’s office.

Also, if you have an ROI that only contains crap, document what is missing and report that to the EEOC judge. The people in Stacy’s office are working hand in hand with management and the OCC to ensure that you can’t win. Make a move now to protect yourself.

[Doc Holiday]

WOW, great job Latina. You are correct. In most cases bullys (SUCH AS OUR MANAGERS AND CHIEF COUNSEL Attorneys) aren't really that tough. PEOPLE, I AGREE. HEED HER ADVICE BELOW.

[Educated Latina]

I just recently won my EEO case against some of the worst managers ATF has ever hired.  They lied and stuck together in their joint efforts to win their case.  However, they underestimated an educated Latina!

• I documented everything!
  
• I carried a journal with me at all times.
  
• I recorded conversations and meetings.
  
• I printed my emails.
  
• I collected my own statements.
  
• I had my recordings transcribed.
  
• I was calm, cool and collected.
  
• I stayed professional.
  
• I hired an attorney.
  
• I did my research and never let management get away with anything.

They are not "God" and mean nothing...nothing but a joke!  If you are involved in an EEO battle, do all the above and then hire an attorney.  They will shake in their panties.   Take charge of your situation, don't let it take charge of you.  If you must quit, then quit.

[Thor God of Thunder]

Sandy Davis, on 13 July 2011 - 07:33 PM, said:

Very true - It has happened in many cases that either an attorney dropped the ball, a judge was merely a puppet for the gov, or agents just wore out and could no longer deal with or afford all the litigation.  Some of us were very lucky in how things fell into place.  I'm afraid that isn't really the norm.  Sandy

They do attempt to wear you down!

[Thor God of Thunder]

It is really unfortunate that ATF has decided to shoot themselves in the foot by firing Vince Cefalu.  Vince hold on because you are in  for a windfall of money.  I know that you do not do it for the money but still money does help to ease the pain.

[GoodWorker]

VINCENT A CEFALU, on 08 June 2011 - 08:25 PM, said:

Apparently Ms. Loos had a little insider trading information. Listen to the attached interview. I am told this FORMER EEOC Judge is approachable and will provide documetation that the EEOC system is stacked against you.  
www.blogtalkradio.com/4justice/2011/06/07/gangster-government-usa-an-eeoc-judge-tells-all

I wish more people would come forward with info like this.

[VINCENT A CEFALU]

Apparently Ms. Loos had a little insider trading information. Listen to the attached interview. I am told this FORMER EEOC Judge is approachable and will provide documetation that the EEOC system is stacked against you.  
www.blogtalkradio.com/4justice/2011/06/07/gangster-government-usa-an-eeoc-judge-tells-all

Thor God of Thunder, on 21 May 2011 - 08:32 AM, said:

The motion of summary judgment is the thing that everyone seems to be unable to survive.

Anyone out there knows how to respond to a motion of summary judgment?  What needs to be done and does anyone have a successful go-by?

How is it survived?  They count on the fact that the lawyers know and we do not.

[Thor God of Thunder]

The motion of summary judgment is the thing that everyone seems to be unable to survive.

Anyone out there knows how to respond to a motion of summary judgment?  What needs to be done and does anyone have a successful go-by?

How is it survived?  They count on the fact that the lawyers know and we do not.

[Retired and loving it]

Interesting that there is one "NO" vote in the "Does ATF Cheat to Win EEO Cases?" survey.

I wonder which attorney cast that vote?

[ProConfesso]

Oral complaints may be protected under anti-retaliation provisions
In a recent Supreme Court ruling, Kasten v Saint Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., No. 09-834, the Court discussed the meaning of "filing a complaint" and that oral complaints may be the same as written complaints.  The case had to do with the FLSA statute but the case may be useful to show that telling your supervisor about a potentially illegal or wrongful practice verbally may entitle you to the same protection as if you had put the complaint in writing.

[Thor God of Thunder]

Your case should be layed out in simple facts in a chronology of events that can be followed by a 5 year old and proves your case.
When you add details, quote the evidence (documents, depositions and statements) and provide them as exhibits.

If you have a lot of evidence, put together an inventory (spreadsheet) of all of your events, evidence and statements.This will help you identify how you should lay out your case and what exactly you have.  You would be surprised how you understand your case better.

[Thor God of Thunder]

This is the missing link for most of the federal employees that establish a prima facie case of discrimination.  Usually, they are unable to establish pretext or survive the agency's motion for summary judgement because the federal employee, does not know what pretext is or what is needed to overcome it.

What is a summary judgement motion?

This is a call for each side to put forth their case with evidence and testimony whether it be in the motion or response.  You do not have to "respond" to the agency's case but you have to present evidence that shows pretext for discrimination or retaliation.  For most Federal employees you are responding to the government's motion.  Due to the fact that you are responding to a motion, you feel you have to defend what the agency is saying.  You need to stick to your case and point out the evidence and "connect the dots" to defeat a motion of summary judgment. If you can show that there are conflicting statements from two witnesses on a material fact, a motion for summary judgement can be defeated.

How do you show pretext?

Pretext can be found based on (a) statistics, (b comparators similarly situated, (c written or oral statement(s) indicating bias, or (d) just plain false reason. If the employment discrimination plaintiff establishes its prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the defendant to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employer's actions. If the defendant carries this burden, the plaintiff must prove that the proffered reasons were pretextual. Pretext is established by a direct showing that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or by an indirect showing that the employer's explanation is not credible.

Three approaches have been developed by the courts for proving pretext. They have been referred to as "pretext only," "permissive pretext only," and "pretext plus." "Pretext only" is the least stringent of the three approaches. It simply requires that a plaintiff prove that the defendant's proffered reason is pretextual. Once this is proven, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The intermediate approach is the "permissive pretext only" standard. Under this method, if the plaintiff establishes that the defendant's reasons are pretextual the trier of fact is permitted, but not required, to enter judgment for the plaintiff. The pretext plus approach to employment discrimination cases requires a direct showing of discrimination, in addition to proof of pretext. In St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the "pretext plus" and "pretext only" approaches in favor of the "permissive pretext only" standard and held that it was permissible, but not mandatory, for the trier of fact to make an ultimate finding of intentional discrimination once the plaintiff has established pretext.

Lastly, you lay out your case pointing to the evidence in the ROI or additional statements that you may have when you summarize the reasons that you believe the government's business reason is pretext "connect the dots" to show pretext.  For example:

Your Chronology should go something like this:

On April 8, 2011, Humpty dumpty Loos sat on a wall.  In her statement dated 4/8/2011,
she stated that she sat on a wall. (ROI Exhibit A, page 10)

For each fact that you put forth, you should be able to point to it in statements and in documents.

Your summary should go something like this:

The reasons that the agency's reasons are pretextual are Reason 1 (someone outside of protected group treated differently), Reason 2, (not explained), Reason 3 (credibility of the witnesses)and Reason 4 (I have outstanding evaluations).  Based on these reasons, a reasonable mind could find pretext.

Here is a resource or a goby:

Go By for Summary Motion Response

I hope this helps all of those that are still fighting the good fight to keep ATF honest and hold some these maggots accountable and responsible, just like maggot GG is trying to do now.

[Hiram A]

Another EEO Trick utilized by ATF is to render your complaint moot by basically by righting the wrong that you allege. ATF will not tell you this but you are entitled to compensatory damages for emotional distress and mental anguish.  You must always ask for compensatory damages from the inception of your complaint.  If you ask for compensatory  damages during the processing of your complaint, ATF must address your claim for compensatory damages before rendering your complaint moot or else it is not moot.  If they do not, which more than likely the will not, you should pursue it further, especially if they render it moot in a Final Agency Decision (like they did me).  This may include going to Federal court to get your claims addressed and to get your compensatory damages. You will have to present objective evidence (letter from doctor, statement from wife, statement from family members and friends, counselor, etc)of the harm that you were caused.

This is Hiram reporting to you live for Clean Up ATF from Washington, DC!!!!

[Thor God of Thunder]

Withr regards to "EEOC warns Treasury to keep EEO investigations independent", EEOC is only saying something that we have known all a long and have suffered, since Chief Counsel's Office took over personnel matters and advises management officials with regards to their statements prior to submitting them to the investigator.

I would like to say that we should all be prepared to go to Federal court with our EEO claims, since ATF will not fairly or justly address employees' concerns.   Look to the latest fiasco as to how lower level employees are handled and treated even when they are right!!

[ProConfesso]

"EEOC warns Treasury to keep EEO investigations independent"

"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission affirmed the agency's decision finding no discrimination, but reminded the agency that its EEO process must avoid "actions that might create the appearance that it is influencing employees' responses to EEO investigations." The EEOC said the agency had allowed its Office of General Counsel, which is responsible for defending against EEO complaints, to become too involved in the investigation of a discrimination complaint. The OGC office reviewed and assisted in the development of management officials' statements before they were submitted to the EEO investigator. Rucker v. Department of the Treasury, 111 LRP 10445 (EEOC OFO 02/04/11)"

[Doc Holiday]

WWW.EEO21.COM       This site will be very helpful.  Pay close attention to the deficiencies and the omissions in the DSZ final ROI. Until the agency attorneys begin defending the agency and NOT abusive managers, the agency will keep spending millions, instead of spending it on catching badguys.  Mr. Grassley can be none too happy with the agencys disregard for the NO FEAR ACT and EEOC regulations and laws.

[Doc Holiday]

Is it true, ATF HQ is pressing physical exams to force people into retirement? Ie..... Fitness for dutys?  Did Mr. Traver take a mandatory physical to come back? Have any of the cancer survivors? Or just those who have complaints pending?  Didnt Martin and crew try to use the OWCP rules to fire Cefula?

[Thor God of Thunder]

Folks,

Doc Holiday is right!  The agency is setting up these lying lawyers so that they can hide behind privilege when they perpetrate a fraud, waste and/or abuse.

Do not be afraid to take your issues to federal court!  I know it is scary.  I know there may be a fear of the unknown but we must take them to task to stop the abuses and the lies.  I know this decision is a personal one as well as financial but once they know they can violate you and get away with it.  They come back for more, just ask Jay Dobyns and Vince Cefalu.  Do not allow this to continue to happen.

I wish everyone that is fighting the good fight well in your endeavors.  Keep your head up and don't take any wooden nickels.  Again, you are not alone!!

[Doc Holiday]

If you haven't noticed, Mr. Melson AND presumably Mr. Travers answer to Chief counsels employee abuses and retaliation and reprisal to protected whistle-blowers and EEOC complaints is to stack the deck. I guess what we all knew were lies and dodges during Cefula's, Andrades and "dozens" of other complaints CNN interviews are now taking on a new Direction.
1. Now all employee disputes are vetted through Chief counsel before they even becomes disputes, GOOD CALL MR MELSON
2. It is investigated by Internal Affairs which is being run now by AN ATTORNEY.
3. Then once Chief counsel has spun managements story it goes up to the professional review board where once again, AN ATTORNEY is the chair now.
4. Finally, and best of all, YOU GOT IT, The Bureau deciding official is AN ATTORNEY.
Mr. Melson, you looked at the camera and stated unequivocally that you dont retaliate, you dont tolerate retaliation and you are gonna hold those who do accountable. Hows that? By insulationg them with 4 levels of Chief Counsels unethical practices? Seriously? You have allowed Chief Counsel to make the Ombudsman's Office ineffective. Were we the ONLY ones who read the Presidents mandate on Government transparency?

[Iceman]

Make sure that if you contact a EEOC counselor, that you immediately notify everyone in your chain of command in writing. This will help prevent the ATF practice of retaliation.

[Simple Man]

Doc Holiday, on 22 December 2010 - 11:25 PM, said:

Mr.Traver and Mr. Melson, I have provided the following definitions, not out of disrespect but as a reminder. Stop pretending you are complying with the ADR and mediation requirments, because you ARE NOT. Again,you lied to Anderson Cooper and you are lying to the tax paying public.STOP pretending that you want to resolve internal strife. You have NO intention beyond complying with the letter of the law. Just stop. How can you ignore the ongoing and in fact increased morale issues and stepped up reprisals.
RAC Quinonez, Agent Dobyns. Text book reprisals.McMahon is either a puppet or a coward. Ray Charles can see what Newell and Gillette have perpetrated. Remove them.  

An attempt to bring about a peaceful settlement or compromise between disputants through the objective intervention of a neutral party.
GOOD FAITH
Honestly and without deception. An agreement might be declared invalid if one of the parties entered with the intention of defrauded the other.The duty of each party to an agreement (and all officers, employees, or agents of each party) to act in a fair and equitable manner toward each other so as to guarantee each party freedom from coercion, intimidation, or threats of coercion or intimidation from the other.

THE QUESTION OF THE DAY TO ALL AT ATF IS THIS: IF THE COMPLAINTANTS AND THEIR DISPUTES ARE UNWARRANTED THEN WHY DOES ATF WORK SO HARD TO KEEP DOCUMENTS CONCEALED AND WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING.  IF ATF DID NOTHING WRONG IN ALL THESE DISPUTES DOESN'T IT MAKE SENSE FOR ATF TO TAKE AN ATTITUDE OF "HERE ARE THE DOCS AND HERE ARE OUR WITNESSES" AND SIMPLY SHOW THAT THE RETALIATION OR BAD CONDUCT ALLEGED IS NOT ACCURATE?  WHY DO THEY CONCEAL AND FIGHT SO HARD TO KEEP THE VICTIMS FROM BEING ABLE TO LEARN THE TRUTH?  WE KNOW WHY.

[Doc Holiday]

Mr.Traver and Mr. Melson, I have provided the following definitions, not out of disrespect but as a reminder. Stop pretending you are complying with the ADR and mediation requirments, because you ARE NOT. Again,you lied to Anderson Cooper and you are lying to the tax paying public.STOP pretending that you want to resolve internal strife. You have NO intention beyond complying with the letter of the law. Just stop. How can you ignore the ongoing and in fact increased morale issues and stepped up reprisals.
RAC Quinonez, Agent Dobyns. Text book reprisals.McMahon is either a puppet or a coward. Ray Charles can see what Newell and Gillette have perpetrated. Remove them.  

An attempt to bring about a peaceful settlement or compromise between disputants through the objective intervention of a neutral party.
GOOD FAITH
Honestly and without deception. An agreement might be declared invalid if one of the parties entered with the intention of defrauded the other.The duty of each party to an agreement (and all officers, employees, or agents of each party) to act in a fair and equitable manner toward each other so as to guarantee each party freedom from coercion, intimidation, or threats of coercion or intimidation from the other.

[Doc Holiday]

Go to the following website.
http://www.eeoc.gov/.../0520080115.txt

Its an EEOC appeal that gives you some options. First, the fact that the government did not complete the investigation within the prescribed 180 days(without the complainants concurrence), resulted in a judgement for the complainant. Secondly, the judge ruled that investigation by affidavit (commonly used by ATFs EEOC firm, DSZ) is not always sufficient to create an accurate record and should be challenged. One last thing, If you have an administrative judge who wants verbal motions, REFUSE. All motions and significant communications MUST be in writing to maintain an accurate record.

[Doc Holiday]

ATF GETS THE OPPOSING TEAMS PLAYBOOK.
If you have an EEOC case pending, and after you have received the Investigative file prepared for ATF by DSZ, FOIA or DEMAND in discovery, the Investigative plan submitted by the investigator,through DSZ to ATF EEOC. THAT'S RIGHT, before DSZ does the first interview, ATF has the play book. Now the question is, does ATF EEOC give chief counsel OR the manager named in the complaint advanced notice of how they must defend the allegation. To make this simple, its like forwarding a suspect in one of you cases your investigative strategy. Remember ATF EEOC gets and is allowed to respond to the plan, Before the complainant has been interviewed. Also be aware that in many cases DSZ does NOT personally interview the managers. In many cases, they just send written questions and then the manager and an ATF attorney answer the questions and send them back.

[Thor God of Thunder]

Although, I have no direct ties to the OBAMA administration these are my thoughts.  I it is easier for the administration to ignore the implosion occurring at ATF than to screw up and appoint a Director, which will screw up like the last one.  Additionally, they don't want to run the risk that he will be sniped like the last one was too.  They would prefer to let us eat each other up alive.

This is what I think....

[Doc Holiday]

Simple Man, on 21 October 2010 - 06:43 AM, said:

Over fifteen thousand views to this topic page alone!  Not fifteen hundred - 15,000!  Over 100,000 views of the website.  Melson you think no one is paying attention to what you are up to?  You think that everyone is buying off on your three webcasts and now everything is OK?  You may not be soley responsible for this trainwreck of management but you are most definately a huge part of ignoring fixing it.

Ask to step down or aside.  Take all the AD's with you when you go.  What bigger vote of "no confidence" do you guys need to see?

WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION MR.MELSON. WE WANT OUR BUREAU BACK.

[Doc Holiday]

Simple Man, on 21 October 2010 - 06:43 AM, said:

Over fifteen thousand views to this topic page alone!  Not fifteen hundred - 15,000!  Over 100,000 views of the website.  Melson you think no one is paying attention to what you are up to?  You think that everyone is buying off on your three webcasts and now everything is OK?  You may not be soley responsible for this trainwreck of management but you are most definately a huge part of ignoring fixing it.

Ask to step down or aside.  Take all the AD's with you when you go.  What bigger vote of "no confidence" do you guys need to see?

WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION MR.MELSON. WE WANT OUR BUREAU BACK.

[Simple Man]

Over fifteen thousand views to this topic page alone!  Not fifteen hundred - 15,000!  Over 100,000 views of the website.  Melson you think no one is paying attention to what you are up to?  You think that everyone is buying off on your three webcasts and now everything is OK?  You may not be soley responsible for this trainwreck of management but you are most definately a huge part of ignoring fixing it.

Ask to step down or aside.  Take all the AD's with you when you go.  What bigger vote of "no confidence" do you guys need to see?

[Doc Holiday]

Mr. Melson and the Exec. Staff, we are law law enforcement agency. We should not have to stoop to the tactics in the last post. You should also quit tyrying to backdoor complainants by holding up security clearances for trivial crap. Its undignified. As is placing agents on indeterminate periods of restricted duty. Due process applies to agents too. Ypou are looking petty and inviting more media and congressional scrutiny. Mr. Melson handle this bad business or FLEOA and the media will.

[Thor God of Thunder]

It is naive to think that ATF is going to give you evidence against themselves. I remember that one of my supervisors told me that when you go to fight ATF, you should know from the very beginning whether you win or lose.  I continue to emphatically say that you should have your evidence prior to filing your complaint.  

ATF is not going to give you anything that is going to hurt them.  This is a reality that must be accepted.  They lie, they cheat, they steal and get away with it.  The abuses are countless.  The unethical and lack of integrity behavior endless.  We need to find ways to beat them regardless of all of their dishonest, unfair, unethical, low-life, cross the line criminal and not worthy of an ATF job behavior.  

Therefore, we must unite and assist each other to provide statements and/or information like the example that Madea cites.  

Furthermore, you should have your evidence to prove the facts in your case prior to filing your complaint.  Anything that you request from the Agency should be gravy and serve to further clarify the evidence and or the information that you have.  You should not be receiving anything you did not already know, although it would be nice.  They are just not going to do it, unless you get a rookie.

No matter how much the employees in the field HATE Eleaner Loos, management LOVES Eleaner Loos!  Even when Mr. Melson indicated that there would be some personnel moves after Ms. Loos' "EEO is a bitch platform for employees" debacle, no action has been taken.  It is my hope that Mr. Melson would keep his word and move or get rid of Ms. Loos.  I call on Eleaner Loos to resign after her statements in the Atlanta Field Division, which were retaliatory and should have never been spoken by the agency representative.  If Eleaner Loos had one shred or iota of honor, distinction, integrity and ethics, she would resign.