68 replies to this topic

[Hiram A]

I submitted my Request for Reconsideration on or about September 16, 2010. I called a week ago and asked the status. The following day, after my call, I received a letter acknowledging that they had received my information. Additionally, I have not heard from the DOJ attorneys in the pending EEO case. I will have to email the DOJ attorneys to see if I can get information. Why does it take so long? It has already been almost 3 years on the original or initial complaint. This Hiram reporting to you from Washington, DC for Clean Up ATF!

[Thor God of Thunder]

No matter how valid your complaint if you are not addressing all of the elements in your claim, they will attempt to dismiss with a Final Agency Decision (FAD)(for not stating a claim or being moot) or a Summary Judgment Motion(when they do not provide you any evidence during discovery). Even when you line your ducks all in a row, if you are not paying attention, they will sneak in a dismissal or a win for them. If this premiere law enforcement agency handles its internal business and mistreats its personnel in this manner, can you imagine how it treats the American public. I would call on Congress to have hearings regarding the abuses of ATF on federal employees and have them impact ATF's budget based on this. I would imagine that their would be years of testimony and evidence to sift through and ATF would have $1 or less as a budget. Mr. Melson when will this stop? It is happening on your watch and like the rest of your staff, you do not care!

[Thor God of Thunder]

It begins even before the formal complaint and contract investigation when the Agency EEO Counselor's contact the Agency HQ EEOC Office for their marching orders. The Counselor's inquiries are directed not by who they determine or logically conclude needs to be interviewed but by the HQ EEOC who in turn takes guidance from the Office of Chief Counsel.

You are absolutely correct! This is the reason that your complaint has to be very well written from the very beginning. It should contain and address all of the elements so that your claim can not and will not be easily dismissed.

[ProConfesso]

It begins even before the formal complaint and contract investigation when the Agency EEO Counselor's contact the Agency HQ EEOC Office for their marching orders. The Counselor's inquiries are directed not by who they determine or logically conclude needs to be interviewed but by the HQ EEOC who in turn takes guidance from the Office of Chief Counsel.

[Hiram A]

Ladies and Gentlemen: After I received the EEOC Decision on Appeal, which was in favor of the Agency, I was, of course, disappointed. I took a second look at it and I made the decision to request Reconsideration based on the following: "STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0701) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which tend to establish that: 1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law..." Specifically when I took a closer look at the Decision on Appeal, I noticed that the fact that I had requested compensatory damages had not been properly considered nor the fact that I suffered harm was also not properly considered. In addition, the Decision indicated that the Agency indicated that no selection was made, when in fact the announcement was canceled. I provided specific evidence that proves the above is true. It is my hope that the EEOC will agree with me this time. I will keep you posted. This is Hiram Andrades reporting to you live for Clean Up ATF.org!

[Hiram A]

I received a response to my Appeal from the EEOC on an issue that I have pending. This appeal was denied. I am disappointed. I will take a line from the poem "Invictus" by William Henley, which says, "My head is bloody, but unbowed." I can assure you that I will continue to fight and hold ATF accountable and responsible for their actions, regardless of the outcome. This reminds me of another line from the poem "Invictus", which says, "I thank whatever Gods may be, For my unconquerable soul." I hope to have some good news in the future. This is Hiram Andrades reporting to you live from Washington, DC for Clean Up ATF.org back to you in the studio!

[VINCENT A CEFALU]

Not only are counsels comments indicative of an institutional mandate to chill the employees but counsels unethical actions, discovery abuse,misrepresentaions and document tampering, (Richard Hurst) have historically had the absolute effect of chilling the field. Not anymore. The curtain has been pulled back, and we will demand accountability. The SFFD was found to have discriminated FORMALLY, as posted at the direction of then ADFO Hoover. The official ATF table of penalties mandates termination of those responsible. It does not just mandate a transfer to be a SAC in another field division.

[ProConfesso]

Re: Loos- CNN reported comments. From "cyberfeds" news stories: "EEOC gives manager's comments a chilly reception" An agency can be found liable for retaliation if a manager makes comments that are reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in EEO activity. Boswell v. U.S. Postal Service, 110 LRP 42319 (EEOC OFO 07/06/10).

[Hiram A]

During the months of June and July, I engaged in a letter exchange with DOJ attorney's whether the CNN news report should be admitted to the record. My most recent letter also included the article where Ms. Loos' remarks are mentioned and the statement from the Atlanta supervisor, Rafiq Ahmad. In late July, I wrote the administrative judge and told her that ultimately the burden of proof is mine and that any and all information that I submitted should be considered to determine whether or not I had met my burden of proof. I have not heard back from the DOJ attorneys. With regards to the status of retaliation within ATF, there have been some positive steps but not nearly enough to right the wrongs of the past that are still pending, including mine. Managers and supervisors are aware that retaliation will not be tolerated. This is clear. Ms. Loos remains in the background with no announced change in position and/or duties. There are still retaliatory practices in place, like arbitrarily removing your name from a list of consideration without notifying you or informing you of the reason. The end result is the same...you are not selected. I believe that there is still a "black ball list" or "black ball lists" that exist within the ATF. This is the reason and only explanation that I was denied a promotion in 1993, which was corrected as the result of the Black Agent's Lawsuit. This is the reason that I had to apply for over 100 jobs to get a supervisory position. This is the reason that I continue to be denied opportunities for training and assignments that could lead to advancement. In my opinion, the assessment center is a joke and is defeated at every turn. There are some selecting officials that ask potential applicants they want to select for their scores so they know which competencies they prefer, forward to HR and influence the selection of the Assessment Center. This assessment center process is not blind! While the assessment center is not going anywhere in the near future some changes would be appropriate to restore the integrity of this process. Let me be clear...I am NOT a disgruntled employee as some believe! I am an employee that has worked hard for this agency for the last 23 years and wants the best for this agency. I am an employee that in the same manner is held accountable and responsible expects his superiors to be held accountable and responsible. I am an employee that does his job and is not going to put up with, as you already know from the CNN report, a lot of "nonsense and bullshit". This is Hiram Andrades reporting to you live from Washington, DC for Clean Up ATF.org...back to you in the studio!

[Thor God of Thunder]

I realize that being victimized repeatedly is not something that we signed up for. The EEO Office re-victimizes you by siding with the agency and taking a long time to resolve your issues. In the meantime, you are denied promotions and significant assignments because you are deemed unworthy for your EEO participation. We must continue to as someone else may have put it to "hold their feet to the fire". The executives of this agency must be held accountable and responsible for their actions. If we do not hold them responsible and accountable, no one else will. No one else has brought us to this point but the executives of this agency. No one else is responsible and no one else should be held accountable but the executives of this agency. The CNN report is but a symptom of the problem and is what those employees, who were bold enough had to do to bring this issue to the attention of Mr. Melson, Mr. Holder and Mr. Obama. I hope and pray that they are listening and paying attention.

[BeenThereDoneThat]

I filed one EEO discrimination complaint and four EEO retaliation/reprisal complaints over seven years. ATF was sucessful in getting them all consolidated into ONE case when I went into Federal Court. So in essence, they bit from the apple not once -- but at least five times. (I was so beat down, that I stopped filing complaints after the fifth accepted complaint.) To me, it was like getting assaulted or raped by an offender five different times over many years -- and the offender was allowed to argue that the last four did not count as separate offenses. Getting your case in court as soon as possible, will save you money, time, and continued repeat offenses.

[ProConfesso]

Of course there is an option to bring an action into Federal District Court after 180 days of filing a formal complaint. I am aware that attorney costs are an issue. Any attorneys want to file civil actions?

[abteilung]

This week I received a letter acknowledging a request from the Office of Federal Operations for the complaint file and the Agency's response on the issue that is pending on appeal. I have been told that these appeals can take years. I am hoping that my appeal will not take years.

My complaint has been sitting at the local EEOC district for about two years now. The last action was my response to ATF's motion to dismiss [despite their admission that the act in question did in fact occur]. I expect the complaint to continue to sit for a couple more years.
The sad thing is that ATF has no problem with waiting us out, allowing act after act of retaliation. The lawyers and SES's at The Puzzle Palace have no personal stake in any claim; we, however, do.
As both human beings and as law enforcement professionals, we are bothered, insulted and outraged by acts of discrimination and injustice against ourselves and our brothers and sisters in arms. In light of the fact that ATF Counsel and the SES's are neither decent human beings nor PROFESSIONAL, acts of injustice against others bother them not. And that, my friends, will be standard operating procedure until each and every one of them is held accountable for their acts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance.

[Hiram A]

This week I received a letter acknowledging a request from the Office of Federal Operations for the complaint file and the Agency's response on the issue that is pending on appeal. I have been told that these appeals can take years. I am hoping that my appeal will not take years.

[Hiram A]

I received a letter from the EEOC that acknowledges receipt of my appeal for the dismissed issue. I requested an appeal on the following basis: 1. Retaliatory Conduct 2. Complaint is not moot *Compensatory Damages Requested *Retaliatory Conduct not eradicated or addressed 3. Fragmentation of complaint 4. Complainant wanted an investigation conducted 5. Pattern of retaliation 6. Violations of EEOC Regulations On the issues that are pending, I recently signed and had notarized a deposition. I made a copy for myself and the admin judge and sent the original back to the stenographer, since there was an issue about me getting a copy from the DOJ attorneys. The case is still pending before the admin judge and there has been no movement since my deposition in late April. I wanted to thank those of you that provided positive feedback on the CNN report documenting retaliation in ATF. I appreciate your encouragement and support. What I would like everyone to know is that I sat down with CNN for two hours and spoke on the subject of retaliation and discussed my case in particular. When you discuss your negative experiences, it is difficult not to relive them and get worked up about it. In the edited piece, I was very passionate and talking from the heart. These are and were solely my opinions, based on my knowledge, experiences and responding to the questions that I was asked by Abbie Boudreau. I realize that I will not win any popularity contests by saying bullshit on national TV. I also realize that I not win any popularity contests with some of my peers and supervisors. However, if my actions help shift, even ever so slightly, the culture of retaliation that was exposed by CNN, in my view, it is worth it. I have viewed the CNN report and the podcast of the Deputy Director and I believe that he is genuine and sincere when he says that he will not tolerate retaliation against ATF employees. In the end, I hope that my assessment is correct and hope to see the changes implemented by the Deputy Director, as the result of the information brought to his attention. I realize this is not and will not be an easy task. I also realize that it will not happen over night. In the end, I want to believe that it will benefit all employees. Whether I prevail on my pending issues, it remains to be seen but I will continue to keep you, the readers of this forum, updated.

Edited by Hiram A, 17 June 2010 - 02:06 AM.

[Thor God of Thunder]

Agent Andrades, remember ONE thing. The truth will Always be the truth no matter what legal wranglins or spins Or delays Ms. Loos and crew put on it, they can't change the truth.

You are right Doc! They can change their reasons, change or forget the testimony of the witnesses, and even attempt to change the evidence. They are still guilty. At the end of the day, they will not be able to change the truth! They will not be at able to change the evidence and they will not prevail. They can delay but they will not prevail. They can delay but they will not break your will. They can delay but they can not dissuade your determination and resolve. They can delay but they can cannot shake your committment to this agency and making them do the right thing by not just you but all employees. An injustice to one employee is an injustice to all employees. ATF needs to find a different way of doing business or risk going out of business.

For Asgard!
For Clean Up ATF!
For ATF Employees!!

[Doc Holiday]

Agent Andrades, remember ONE thing. The truth will Always be the truth no matter what legal wranglins or spins Or delays Ms. Loos and crew put on it, they can't change the truth.

[Hiram A]

I have completed my appeal to the Agency's Final Agency Decision. I feel pretty good about it. I will have to wait and see what the EEOC, Federal Operations has to say about it. The basis-es for my appeal are several. I will be sharing the basis-es of my appeal when I get a decision from the EEOC. I will be turning it in this week. Wish me luck!! Thanks, Hiram

[Thor God of Thunder]

Please, please, and please! Do not take my gratitude as a sign of weakness! I am grateful to the folks that did the work. I want to believe that these are decent people. I also believe that the EEO Director and staff are being remotely controlled and told every step to take. All of the delays, they are planned and not because they have a lot of work to do. Based on my experience, I have concluded that ATF just does not care about EEO complaints. Ms. Loos has made that very clear.

The ATF EEO Office has not been independent in a very long time and is definitely not objective.

I am going to see this thing through until the end. I will see you on the other side.

Thanks,

Hiram

The evil Hobitt is large and in charge or at least trying to be!

[Hiram A]

Please, please, and please! Do not take my gratitude as a sign of weakness! I am grateful to the folks that did the work. I want to believe that these are decent people. I also believe that the EEO Director and staff are being remotely controlled and told every step to take. All of the delays, they are planned and not because they have a lot of work to do. Based on my experience, I have concluded that ATF just does not care about EEO complaints. Ms. Loos has made that very clear. The ATF EEO Office has not been independent in a very long time and is definitely not objective. I am going to see this thing through until the end. I will see you on the other side. Thanks, Hiram

[Hiram A]

Is there a wind of change within ATF? I requested some documentation from DOJ/ATF EEO and I received it the same week and within days. I was surprised at the quick response. I must publically thank those involved for making this happen. If you read this website, thank you! Thanks again, Hiram

[Hiram A]

The agency (which is code for Chief counsels Office), is notorious for ignoring the law and dragging out complaints with the sole intent of #1 covering retaliatory acts by management, and #2 creating legals expenses and grief for its dedicated employees.To Hiram and others who have been exposed to these games. Be advised: the fact that you challenge them, and when they are CAUGHT, they reverse the prohibited personnel practice and give you what you had originally asked for DOES NOT exempt them from liability. SEE

BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY
COMPANY, PETITIONER v. SHEILA WHITE
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of
appeals for the sixth circuit
[June 22, 2006]

No. 05-259.?Argued April 17, 2006--Decided June 22, 2006
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment
discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin," 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a), and its
anti-retaliation provision forbids "discriminat[ion] against"
an employee or job applicant who, inter alia, has "made a
charge, testified, assisted, or participated in" a Title VII
proceeding or investigation, §2000e-3(a)

It CLEARLY states that just because the agency reverses its bad acts when the complainant is nipping at their heels, does not negate the fact that they took the act in the first place.

Thank you Doc! I appreciate your information.

Thanks,

Hiram

[Doc Holiday]

Its a cinch that they didnt bring in Valerie Bacon to be Loos' #2 from an outside agency because the had overwhelming confidence in Bouman, Scavo and crew. Loos is corrupt, lacks any ethical credibility and has lost sight of her mandate to protect the agency NOT corrupt bosses. Even the agency has stepped away from Ms. Loos.

[Doc Holiday]

The agency (which is code for Chief counsels Office), is notorious for ignoring the law and dragging out complaints with the sole intent of #1 covering retaliatory acts by management, and #2 creating legals expenses and grief for its dedicated employees.To Hiram and others who have been exposed to these games. Be advised: the fact that you challenge them, and when they are CAUGHT, they reverse the prohibited personnel practice and give you what you had originally asked for DOES NOT exempt them from liability. SEE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, PETITIONER v. SHEILA WHITE on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit [June 22, 2006] No. 05-259. Argued April 17, 2006--Decided June 22, 2006 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin," 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a), and its anti-retaliation provision forbids "discriminat[ion] against" an employee or job applicant who, inter alia, has "made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in" a Title VII proceeding or investigation, §2000e-3(a) It CLEARLY states that just because the agency reverses its bad acts when the complainant is nipping at their heels, does not negate the fact that they took the act in the first place.

[Hiram A]

Thank you for the encouragement! This past week, I finally received some movement on a pending complaint (I have 2 or 3 others at different stages in the system). This one had been filed with the Agency since October 16, 2009. As to be expected, the Agency issued a Final Agency Decision dismissing my claim because the issue, they claim is moot. Of course, I disagree. This of course is disappointing in the sense of the Agency pursuing this course of action, but I do plan to appeal the dismissal of this issue. This is just another "out" or "secret compartment" or "tricks of the trade" the Agency uses to dismiss employees complaints and not address the issues. This is in furtherance of some officials' belief that the EEO process is a "bitch" platform for employees to complain. I will appeal and I expect to prevail on appeal. I will keep you posted. Sincerely, Hiram

[Doc Holiday]

This is an extremely important example of how we together can change this Bureau. Its disappointing that Mr. Melson was not sincere about opening communications. Its equally disappointing that he continues to allow Loos and counsels Office to run this fine Bureau. By sharing with each other, we are illustrating how wide spread the mismanagement and corruption is at the highest levels. We are glad you were able to use documents found on here to show pattern and practice. Remember all, the truth will always be the truth and these SES types have taken the same oath as we have. The only difference is we remember it. It is abundantly clear Mr. Melson is just keeping a seat warm and he doesn't posses the Love of this Bureau that we do.

[Hiram A]

Dear CleanupATF.org, I went to my EEO deposition yesterday and a deposition that was to last 2 hours lasted 4 hours. I was satisfied with my testimony. I was able to introduce and tie-in Dobyn's complaint and order that has been referenced on this site. I was also able to print and introduce some of the postings on the blogs/discussions. This goes to similar behavior and credibility. This was HUGE and AWESOME!! I would not have been able to do this if it were not for this site! I believe that it went well. I tried to cover my complaint on Issue #2 (retaliation complaint) and evidence provided to them related to this issue. The discovery period closes at the end of the month and I will see what the Administrative Judge does then. I will definitely keep you posted. If you have testified in federal court as a witness, the main thing is be prepared to cover all of the evidence and meet ALL elements of the crime. I believe they bank on you not proving 1 element so your complaint can be dismissed. The most common one is proving that the official reasons of the agency are false (pretext) and that the retaliation that you suffered is an adverse action, which would deter your future participation in the EEO process or have a chilling effect or that there is a causal link (the EEO activity occurred within 1 year of the retaliatory incident). I hope this is helpful to those that are going through the same thing that I am. Thanks, Hiram

[Hiram A]

Hiram,
Thank you for having the courage to come forward. I am a ATF-San Juan Alum and I have heard your name before. I do not think that any of us are asking for too much when we ask to go to work and do our 10 hours in a professional environment. All we want to do are our jobs and go home to enjoy our families. I felt safer on the streets of San Juan (highest crime rate in the US) than I did in my office with the unprofessional and illegal conduct that was going on in the office. I hope that someone with some authority will see this reappearing pattern of the same abuse of authority, lying, and fraud waste and abuse allegations. We need more people to come forward and tell the truth otherwise the bad employees will win. There is a quote that goes something along the lines of, there is a cost to make change and there is just as much of a cost to leave things the same. You get the gist of the quote. If we are going to live with stress, lets have the stress serve a positive purpose-CHANGE. Then and only then will ATF actually be one of the top 10 places to work in the Federal government.

Regards

Adam

Hey Adam,

The Puerto Rico assignment is and was rough. I believe that a professional environment is what I demand. I do not believe there are any winners or losers in this. When ATF does not act in the best interest of the citizens of the United States, we all lose. Taxpayers dollars are being wasted to protect the guilty at ATF and this should not be. The rules apply to some and not to all the same way. I hope to see the day when everyone is treated fairly and in a decent manner.

I have a deposition on the 28th of April, 2010. I will keep you and everyone else posted.

The ATF EEO Office finally responded to my emails. I had to include the head of DOJ's EEO Office. I filed a formal complaint October 15th, 2009 and it is still pending before the EEOC for acceptance. I do not believe that. I have no other choice but to take action.

I can appreciate your quote. It is oh so true.

Thanks for the post and your words of encouragement!

Best Regards,

Hiram

[adelgadoiis]

Hiram, Thank you for having the courage to come forward. I am a ATF-San Juan Alum and I have heard your name before. I do not think that any of us are asking for too much when we ask to go to work and do our 10 hours in a professional environment. All we want to do are our jobs and go home to enjoy our families. I felt safer on the streets of San Juan (highest crime rate in the US) than I did in my office with the unprofessional and illegal conduct that was going on in the office. I hope that someone with some authority will see this reappearing pattern of the same abuse of authority, lying, and fraud waste and abuse allegations. We need more people to come forward and tell the truth otherwise the bad employees will win. There is a quote that goes something along the lines of, there is a cost to make change and there is just as much of a cost to leave things the same. You get the gist of the quote. If we are going to live with stress, lets have the stress serve a positive purpose-CHANGE. Then and only then will ATF actually be one of the top 10 places to work in the Federal government. Regards Adam

[Thor God of Thunder]

Those answers have Eleaner Loos all over them. She coaches managers who know they are dirty to say I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T RECALL, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT. Sullivan used it, Domenech, Bouchard, Webb, Richardon, Newell, Ford, Torres, McLemore (twice), Martin, O'Brien, Gillette, Gordon, Crowell, Hoover, Carter - all of them are experts at not knowing.

Aside from perjuring yourself by saying you don't recall when you do recall you are also guilty of being a coward which may not carry a criminal penalty but the coward jacket is much worse to wear.

The type of testimony in the below post from Gleysteen is offered from someone who ATF has chosen to be the best of the best and lead a field division as a SAC? What are they going to do with him once the perjury charges hit in the Road Dog case? I know, Special Assistant to the Director.

Let me clarify a few points for you.....Leadership in ATF does not equal being the best! Being a SAC does not mean that you are a solid Agent, it just means that you are willing to do what needs to be done including lying as you describe in your post, compromising your integrity and ethics and pulling your neck out of socket to kiss your own azz, to ensure that ATF wins. As someone previously mentioned, this is a repeat of the lying ATF Officials from the WACO days. This is no different than David Troy going on national TV and playing the game "we don't know what exactly happened because none of us where there." WHAT A LOSER!!!??!!! As it has been stated on this website so many times, shit floats so those that rise to the top in ATF....you be the judge. I will admit there are some voyeurs that are not bad leaders but they sit and watch the abusers and predators wreak havoc on employees. They do not lift a finger on the behalf of the victims. This could be out of fear of retaliation and self preservation.

[Doc Holiday]

There are only two explanations for more than one or two "I don't know, I don't recall" in ANY single testimony. You are either completely INCOMPETENT and should not carry a Special Agent Badge. OR you are LYING and should not be carrying a Special Agent badge. At the risk of being redundant, the following is JUST an excerpt from SWORN testimony by recently PROMOTED ASAC Mike Gleysteen to new K.C. SAC, YOU DECIDE, ARE WE TRULY PICKING OUR BEST OF THE BEST FOR THE FUTURE OF THIS BUREAU: Q. Did he talk to you at that time about the police department trying to get a state wiretap? A. I do not recall, but I do know that that was discussed during the course of investigation. I don't know if we discussed that during that particular conversation. Q. Did [Special Agent XXX] tell you that he had - he opposed the task force trying to get a state wiretap? A. I don't specifically remember. Q. Did [Special Agent XXX] tell you that most of the arguments were, or discussions for which he might have used profanity or been aggressive about had to do with his opposition to the task force using state wiretaps in the PD's office? A. I don't have -- as I commented before, I don't have a specific recollection of the issue. Q. Did you consider the possibility that the Police Department and/or the XXXXX County District Attorney's office was complaining about [Special Agent XXX] behavior because of his opposition to their attempting to get a state wire tap, or his opposition or complaint that they contacted an ATF informant behind his back? A. I can't answer that with a simple yes or no. Q. So did you consider that possibility that the police department and the DA's office was complaining about him more to get him off or out of his case manager or case agent position in that task force? A. I don't know. Q. So after -- was there anything else that [Special Agent XXX] told you about this conversation with the Chief of Police? A. I think that -- I don't specifically recall. Q. Did [Special Agent XXX] tell you that [Mr. XXX] had told [Special Agent XXX] that he didn't realize that that e-mail was going to management, he thought it was only going to so-called the street agents? A. He may have. He may have. Q. Did [Special Agent XXX] tell you that [Mr. XXX] X told [Special Agent XXX]that it was to bust their chops or to make fun of them for not showing up? A. I don't remember that specifically. Q. The question was whether you were ever told by [Special Agent XXX] that [Mr. XXX] said that in joke to basically bust their chops for not showing up at a convention? A. I don't recall ever being told that this was a joke, and nobody in LA division perceived it as a joke, and anybody in management that read it didn't perceive it as a joke. Q. Who did you talk to in the LA division other than XXXX about their perception of what that A. My recollection is one of them during the casual -- at least one of them was, I think, XXX... Q. The other person you said you talked to was not a supervisor? A. I think I talked to one or two other people who were not supervisors. Q. But you don't recall their names at this time? A. No. Q. To your knowledge, did the agency lose money or waste money because someone didn't show up at that convention? A. I don't know. Q. Is it true that the content of [Special Agent XXX] e-mail -- was it true that someone failed to show up when they should have? A. I don't know if that is the case. Q. Could you estimate for me how many special agents and supervisors are in the LA field division? A. I don't know the answer to that. Q. Was it clearly in excess of XXX? A. It could be. Q. Did you ever tell [Special Agent XXX] that [Special Agent XXX] had not intended to send it to the entire division but only to a few agents? A. I don't recall. I mean, I guess I could have during some period of time, but I don't specifically. Q. Do you have a recollection today that you discussed that issue? A. I don't. It could have come up during the conversation. Q. Do you recall any other specific complaints about [Special Agent XXX] conduct, things that he had done? I know you talked about hostility and vulgarity and abrasive thing, but I'm asking if there's any specific things that he hit anybody, anything like that? A. During that meeting? Q. At that meeting, the November XX meeting. A. At that meeting, I don't remember any other specifics that could have been discussed. Q. This incident about not smoking or [Special Agent XXX] smoking was told to you by XXX? A. I think so. Q. Do you know whether [Special Agent XXX] asked [Special Agent XXX] about that smoking incident? A. I don't know if I did. I would assume that he could have. Q. Did [Special Agent XXX] report back to you that he had, in fact, talked to [Special Agent XXX] about that smoking altercation? A. If he did, I don't recall it, but it's possible. It was -- it's possible he did. Q. Regarding that smoking altercation, do you recall that [Special Agent XXX] was alleged to have grabbed his crotch and said, "smoke this"? A. I don't recall anything like that. Q. Do you recall -- A. I don't recall [Special Agent XXX] being like that. Q. But you don't recall telling the SAC that Mr. XXX had grabbed his crotch and said, "smoke this," to somebody from the XXXXX police department? A. I don't recall that, no, I'm sorry. Back on the record. Mr. XXX, you're still under oath. A. Okay, I would like to -- Go ahead. A. I'd like to clarify the last answer I gave. Regarding the smoking comment. I'm not... Q. Did you hear it from [Special Agent XXX]? A. I don't recall where I heard the comment from. Q. Do you recall who made the allegation that [Special Agent XXX] made those comments? A. I don't recall. Q. Did he talk to you during that briefing that he had opposed the police department's attempt to get a state wiretap? A. I don't know. I don't believe so. Q. Do you recall [Special Agent XXX] ever telling you that the police department and DA's office were going to blame him for things because of his complaints about their conduct of that investigation? A. No. Q. Do you know whether Officer XXX was ever reinstated to that task force? A. I don't know. Q. Do you know whether a state wiretap was actually achieved in that XXXXXX investigation? A. I don't know. Eventually we did part ways. Q. When did you part ways with the task force? A. I don't know. Q. Was it sometime in early XXXX? A. It could have been. Q. Was it a few weeks after or a few months after? A. I don't recall. Q. Who was it that told the task force that ATF was pulling out? A. Who told the task force? Q. Yes. A. I don't know. Q. So what was it specifically that you were not seeing eye to eye on? A. I don't recall there being one specific issue. Q. After you parted ways, isn't it true that ATF undercover agents continued to be involved in undercover activities with the target of the XXXXX investigation? A. That may be correct. The American Graffiti case occurred under my watch and that was with XXXXX as the supervisor. Q. Did XXXXXXX talk to you about taking Mr. XXXXX off the Graffiti operation? A. I don't have a recollection of that. Q. During the time of the Graffiti investigation, [Special Agent XXX] was an and then it was -- what was his grade when he started out in the Graffiti investigation; do you know? A. I do not know. Q. Do you know whether he got a promotion during that time? A. I don't know. Q. Did you talk to [Special Agent XXX] about that same evaluation? A. I don't recall. Q. Do you recall whether [Special Agent XXX] changed the language of that evaluation? A. I don't recall. Q. The question is, do you recall that transfer taking place? A. I do recall the transfer. I don't believe so. I don't recall him being -- I don't recall that. Q. When you talked with [Special Agent XXX] on the telephone did you always use your work cell phone? A. I don't know. Q. Was [Special Agent XXX] going to be assigned to that initiative with the Sacramento police department? A. I don't know what XXXXXX envisioned. Q. Was there any specific investigation that that person would be assigned to? I mean, [Special Agent XXX] would be assigned to when he was transferred? A. I don't know. Q. Did [Special Agent XXX] identify a specific work that he needed Mr. XXXXX to do? A. I believe so. Q. What was that? A. I don't know. I don't recall what it was. Q. Do you recall whether that work was going to be done in the Sacramento field office? A. No, I don't know what that assignment was. Q. Did [Special Agent XXX] tell you that whatever assignments [Special Agent XXX] may have in the Sacramento field office, would be office work only, that is, he wouldn't be outside the office? A. I don't remember what the assignment was, so the answer is no, I don't recall. Q. Did you have any concern about his time and attendance, actually putting in work hours? A. I don't recall that, but it could have been an issue for XXXXXX. It may have been one of his Q. Let's stick to the transfer for now. Who specifically at the ELRB did you talk to about the transfer? A. I don't specifically recall because there were a number of people coming and going, so I'm not sure. Q. What were you checking with the ELRB about regarding the transfer? A. I don't know if I checked with them as much

[Thor God of Thunder]

Long time reader, first time poster.

Any agent who knows the truth and when questioned replies with "I don't know" or "I don't recall" has committed perjury. Worse in our world he or she is forever labeled a coward. The ultimate sin for the police. For what? To gain favor with a bureacracy that doesn't even care about you? To ingraciate yourself with a supervisor hoping for greener pastures? Because you are afraid that that some heavy handed boss will make your life miserable?

If you answered yes to any of those questions then you are a coward and you didn't just betray the truth you betrayed yourself.

Leave the I Don't Know's and the I Don't Recall's for our leadership. They have become very comfortable with those answers, and yes, to you lying bosses, the coward shoe fits so wear it.

I agree with you but it still is a prerequisite for becoming AD and DAD.

[Thor God of Thunder]

Witnesses are excellent, but that's only when they are willing to stand up for the truth. A fellow agent witnessed several acts of discrimination against me, but when he got my interrogatory, his answers consisted of "I don't recall."

Now, I do understand that the only martyr the world ever remembered was Jesus Christ, but man, sometimes you have to stand up for what's right. There's an old saying, "let justice be done though the heavens may fall."

Oh, and by the way, ATF actually admitted to the original act of discrimination in its reply to the EEOC. They excused it away by claiming the RAC in question was "ignorant of the law."

You can't make this $hit up.

What you describe is unfortunate, employees should stand up for other employees. Did the "I don't recall" guy get an Oustanding evaluation or an award? You know, this is the way that they reward employees that lie for them. Oh! They also promote them too. This is where you will find most of the liars in ATF, at the top or senior mangement (I don't want to paint them all with a broad brush). This is the reason that I like calling names. You know there is an old cliche that says, "A turd floats." This could be the explanation for so many turds at the top. (Again, not all of them are turds...there is a small minority 1%.)

[abteilung]

Remember, you have to prove your case and not the investigator. I thought my investigator did a good job too. Yes you have to guide them provide them witnessess and the evidence to prove your case. The burden of proof is yours and only yours to meet alone. Each bit of information or evidence that you provide should be unrefutable and undfendable by the ATF. They will attack the evidence and attempt to argue its is not credible but they will be unable to dispute the facts. Just remember that once you have established the elements of your case, you need to go one step further. ATF will be given the opportunity to provide legal reasons why they did what they did. Once they give their business reasons you must show that they are false. In the case of performance, previous evaluations during that same period will show their reasons are false. Emails from the relevant period are also good. A good witness that provides you with a statement is also good. You have to show that the business reasons are an excuse for the real reason discrimination or retaliation. This is where a lot of federal employees lose their cases. You might prove a prima facie case that there was discrimination or retaliation but you do not prove that the business reasons are false.


We, as employees, should not shy away or be reluctant from assisting each other to prove our cases when the violators and predators are the same. I do not have to name them...they have been named throughout this site numerous times. Good luck! Keep up the good fight! There is real power in numbers and knowing you are not alone.

Do not be discouraged! Do not let them wear you down! They want to cause you financial hardship. They do this intentionally! It is all part of their strategy to win. If you can get them to a court or hearing date, they more than likely are to settle. They do not want to put their lying mangers on the witness stand unless they have their line up of liars that can corroborate each other.

Witnesses are excellent, but that's only when they are willing to stand up for the truth. A fellow agent witnessed several acts of discrimination against me, but when he got my interrogatory, his answers consisted of "I don't recall."

Now, I do understand that the only martyr the world ever remembered was Jesus Christ, but man, sometimes you have to stand up for what's right. There's an old saying, "let justice be done though the heavens may fall."

Oh, and by the way, ATF actually admitted to the original act of discrimination in its reply to the EEOC. They excused it away by claiming the RAC in question was "ignorant of the law."

You can't make this $hit up.

[Hiram A]

Stop sounding so surprised. They didnt shut down access to this site for no reason. Mr. Melson and especially Ms. Loos know that they are being exposed. If you were thinking the EEOC Office was independant and impartial, then maybe you should place your faith in the Ombudsmans Office next. They are circling the wagons. The Ombudsman reports to Mr. Hoover who is not even in the chain of command. They are supposed to report directly to Mr. Melson but previous posts are showing that Mr. Melson WANTS to be kept out of the loop. The only answer at this point is " I didnt know". Per the organizational chart approved by Alberto Gonzalez, Mr. Hoover has no authority and is merely an advisor to the Director, which if you havent noticed we dont have and have not had for over 5 years. Please tell me who is driveing this train? Hard to hold a ghost accountable. If you hadnt noticed, it wasnt ATF who blocked AND is monitoring this site. It is main Justice. Mr. holder, where is the transparency?

Doc, I am not surprised. I am and continue to be shocked at the blatant violation and disregard for federal law. I am and continue to be shocked at the fact that these blatant acts go unpunished. I am and continue to be shocked that Agency officials blatantly and repeatedly violate federal law with no sanctions or consequences. If the laws enforced by the Agency were repeatedly and blatantly violated there would be some action to hold whomever this may be accountable and responsible. It is amazing that there is a double standard for the citizens of America and another for Agency top officials!

[Doc Holiday]

Stop sounding so surprised. They didnt shut down access to this site for no reason. Mr. Melson and especially Ms. Loos know that they are being exposed. If you were thinking the EEOC Office was independant and impartial, then maybe you should place your faith in the Ombudsmans Office next. They are circling the wagons. The Ombudsman reports to Mr. Hoover who is not even in the chain of command. They are supposed to report directly to Mr. Melson but previous posts are showing that Mr. Melson WANTS to be kept out of the loop. The only answer at this point is " I didnt know". Per the organizational chart approved by Alberto Gonzalez, Mr. Hoover has no authority and is merely an advisor to the Director, which if you havent noticed we dont have and have not had for over 5 years. Please tell me who is driveing this train? Hard to hold a ghost accountable. If you hadnt noticed, it wasnt ATF who blocked AND is monitoring this site. It is main Justice. Mr. holder, where is the transparency?

[Hiram A]

As the result of my posting the emails between myself and the ATF EEO Office, I do not get an answer when I email the EEO Office. I emailed Stacie Brockman asking the status of my case with her office and she and others ccd: completely ignored my emails. In all fairness, I did receive a letter indicating that an investigator has been assigned.

[Thor God of Thunder]

To be perfectly blunt, the contract investigator assigned to my complaints actually did a good job. His investigative skills are superior to most GS-15's running this agency. Now, I still had to piece together my argument, including how my former RAC, the incompetent boob and complete jacka$$ that is is, purjured himself.

Of course, Loos et al don't care if an ATF manager lied under oath. However, you know the same wouldn't hold true if my answers were at the very least "inconsistent."
in
But Doc is right. Be prepared. Guide the questioning. Just remember--we are skilled investigators. We are used to being cross-examined in court by attorneys FAR more skilled than Loos and her crew. Even though Loos and the SES crowd write the game rules, they are still playing OUR game on OUR field.

Remember, you have to prove your case and not the investigator. I thought my investigator did a good job too. Yes you have to guide them provide them witnessess and the evidence to prove your case. The burden of proof is yours and only yours to meet alone. Each bit of information or evidence that you provide should be unrefutable and undfendable by the ATF. They will attack the evidence and attempt to argue its is not credible but they will be unable to dispute the facts. Just remember that once you have established the elements of your case, you need to go one step further. ATF will be given the opportunity to provide legal reasons why they did what they did. Once they give their business reasons you must show that they are false. In the case of performance, previous evaluations during that same period will show their reasons are false. Emails from the relevant period are also good. A good witness that provides you with a statement is also good. You have to show that the business reasons are an excuse for the real reason discrimination or retaliation. This is where a lot of federal employees lose their cases. You might prove a prima facie case that there was discrimination or retaliation but you do not prove that the business reasons are false.


We, as employees, should not shy away or be reluctant from assisting each other to prove our cases when the violators and predators are the same. I do not have to name them...they have been named throughout this site numerous times. Good luck! Keep up the good fight! There is real power in numbers and knowing you are not alone.

Do not be discouraged! Do not let them wear you down! They want to cause you financial hardship. They do this intentionally! It is all part of their strategy to win. If you can get them to a court or hearing date, they more than likely are to settle. They do not want to put their lying mangers on the witness stand unless they have their line up of liars that can corroborate each other.

[abteilung]

To be perfectly blunt, the contract investigator assigned to my complaints actually did a good job. His investigative skills are superior to most GS-15's running this agency. Now, I still had to piece together my argument, including how my former RAC, the incompetent boob and complete jacka$$ that is is, purjured himself. Of course, Loos et al don't care if an ATF manager lied under oath. However, you know the same wouldn't hold true if my answers were at the very least "inconsistent." But Doc is right. Be prepared. Guide the questioning. Just remember--we are skilled investigators. We are used to being cross-examined in court by attorneys FAR more skilled than Loos and her crew. Even though Loos and the SES crowd write the game rules, they are still playing OUR game on OUR field.

[Doc Holiday]

Be hyper prepared when the investigator comes. DO NOT just reply to their questions. They have stock questions that will not paint the picture of what truly occurred in your case. Guide them. Shoe them SOME documents. Ensure they ask the right questions. Contrary to their titles, they are not investigators, they are merely fact finders. If you have witnesses who will give you declarations regarding the treatment you received, have them signed and waiting. ATF and Ms. Loos have already got their story down. It will include character assassination, job performance criticism and a slurry of disciplinary and harassment plays. Document, Document, Document.