68 replies to this topic

[Hiram A]

I received a letter indicating that the ATF EEO Office is assigning an investigator to 1 of my issues pending before them. This is the most that I have heard from ATF recently. I will keep you updated.

[Hiram A]

Is there any movement in your case?

No movement on my case. I am in a holding pattern. I am waiting for a decison from the administrative judge. I will let you know when there is some movement.

Thanks Thor!

[Thor God of Thunder]

Is there any movement in your case?

[Hiram A]

Special Agent Andrades is said to be a very capable and professional Agent. I have personally spoken to tens many agents who attest to his character and integrity. This Agent could be running a group or be an ASAC guiding this Bureau forward. Instead, he is spending his days under their abuse and nights trying to reconcile how to overcome Ms. Loos and company instead of helping us make America safer.

Thank you for your vote of confidence and encouraging words. I really appreciate them and your support.

[Doc Holiday]

Special Agent Andrades is said to be a very capable and professional Agent. I have personally spoken to tens many agents who attest to his character and integrity. I have not spoken to ONE who will attest to the same for Ms. Loos, her branch or her counsel to our management. This Agent could be running a group or be an ASAC guiding this Bureau forward. Instead, he is spending his days under their abuse and nights trying to reconcile how to overcome Ms. Loos and company instead of helping us make America safer. This is just one example Mr. Melson. He is not anonymous like so many of your attorneys actions are. When the agency hides behind legal wrangling on day to day matters, there's a reason. What could be so damaging in these disputes that Ms. Loos, Bouman and company need to fight at such monetary and manpower expense to conceal? If I were a boss, I'd say, he you go. I did this and this because of this. I did it right, I did it legal and I did it ethical, here every document related to the dispute and its not 99% redacted. NOTHING to HIDE. Stop letting Ms. Loos and crew bastardize the law and lets get back to the business at hand. Catching bad guys. Mr. Melson, we ARE Speaking up.

[Pitbull]

I have decided to share my case regarding Eleaner Loos' retaliation against me. I believe this will help make ATF a better agency, a better place to work, will shine a light on ATF's dirty little secret and will take the power away from some of ATF's abusers.

In 2009, I already had an EEO complaint pending where an investigation had been conducted and was pending before an Administrative Judge. (Protected EEO Activity)

At this time, I was assigned to the Office of OPRSO, Inspection Division. We (Inspection Division) were preparing to conduct an administrative and operational review of Chief Counsel's Office. By coincidence, I was assigned to Eleaner Loos' office (Chief Counsel's Office - Administration and Ethics)

On or about May 1, 2009, I met with Katherine Meng (Loos' subordinate) and Mr. Billy Hoover, AD Field Ops to attempt to settle my case. (Protected EEO Activity)

I sent Eleaner Loos an email notifying her that I was the team leader for her office. She never responded to my email or expressed any concerns to me. She did however contact my first line and second line supervisors.

On May 4, 2009, at 8:00AM, I was informed by the Inspection Leaders that I had been reassigned to another Chief Counsel Office (Disclosure and Forfeiture). I immediately knew that it was because of my EEO protected activity. I was embarrassed and humiliated in front of my peers and collegues in addition to experiencing other issues and physical/emotional ailments. The only reason that I was reassigned to another office was due to my protected EEO activity as described above.

Subsequently, I notified ATF's EEO Office and they did not assign an EEO counselor right away. The EEO Office also has not conducted an investigation into the matter or taken sworn statements from the management officials involved due to the fact that it involves Eleaner Loos, Associate Chief Counsel (Administration and Ethics). Valarie Bacon, (Eleaner Loos) and Katherine Meng from Eleaner Loos' office were the Agency's Representatives in my case until February 1, 2010 when two (2) Department of Justice Attorney were assigned to avoid the "appearance" of a conflict of interest as they stated. I am sure that Eleaner Loos is still manipulating the case in the background.

The Agency also refuses to provide and respond to timely submitted discovery in hopes to prevail or escape via a loophole.

It is my sincere hope that ATF will begin to act with the honor and integrity it demands of its employees and carry out there obligations relating to this and any other cases that they may have pending before an administrative judge or a federal judge. While the Agency should most certainly be concerned with liability, it should also accept and be concerned with responsibility and make sure that employees are treated fairly and with respect no matter on what side of the litigation fence they find themselves on.

Deputy Director Melson the non-cooperation of ATF in legal matters and similar types of ATF actions is what makes ATF employee's use hurtful and disrespectful language because when we (employees) have the courage to stand up and air our grievances, we are victimized again with the Agency's resistance and non-cooperation to the Agency's obligation to ascertain the truth with evidence and not self-serving statements or actions. I believe that if the Agency makes a mistake, they should own up to it and be truthful about it rather than hide behind litigation, engage in further cover-ups, act like what happened does not matter, retaliate and re-victimize the employee.

I believe that this is the change that ATF employees are looking for and this is the type of change that they can believe in.


Sincerely,


Hiram Andrades

[Thor God of Thunder]

I want everyone to know that the DOJ Attorneys are no different than ATF Attorneys. They play some of the same games. I was provided with ATF discovery on this issue on February 24, 2010. I was provided discovery because I asked for the status on it. The DOJ Attorney acted (bad acting job via email) like she was surprised that I had not received it and indicated that she had sent it on February 19, 2010. She and I know that this is not true. I accepted it and reviewed what I already had and it confirmed that I was on the right track.

I will keep you posted as to my progress.

Thanks,

Hiram

Don't be surprised if they give you some late statements from managers, which they think will address some points that will cover there behinds. Don't concentrate on the statements themselves, think of the overall point that is being addressed in the statements and address that with case law or EEO appeal cases. For example, sometimes with all of the lawyer babble and citations they try to make the point that you are not stating a claim. Other times, they pile on the witnesses to make you feel that you have an uphill battle. The reason that they do is to create evidence regarding their incorrect or baseless point and if you are not careful they will sneak it in. Keep up the good fight!

[Hiram A]

I want everyone to know that the DOJ Attorneys are no different than ATF Attorneys. They play some of the same games. I was provided with ATF discovery on this issue on February 24, 2010. I was provided discovery because I asked for the status on it. The DOJ Attorney acted (bad acting job via email) like she was surprised that I had not received it and indicated that she had sent it on February 19, 2010. She and I know that this is not true. I accepted it and reviewed what I already had and it confirmed that I was on the right track. I will keep you posted as to my progress. Thanks, Hiram

[Thor God of Thunder]

Its like this. Ms. Brockman started out strong. There was some hope. NOW, Ms. Brockman has become a puppet of Ms. Loos. Delay, ignore, double talk. If the agency has not done anything wrong, why exactly do they need to delay and withold docs. Ms. Loos has ignored her obligation to protect the agency and has defaulted to protecting corrupt managers. My complaint was ignored and I allowed an extra 60 days (past the ridiculous 180 days) before I requested a hearing. Then and only then did they acknowledge my complaint, accept it (in violation of the law) at which time my atty. said we should let them conduct the investigation. A year later, the "neutral" contract investigators (who are paid by ATF) came out asked my version, then basically asked ATF management "did you do this"? Managers said of course not. Investigation done. Then discovery starts. ATFs response to requests, "we cannot find any responsive documents at this time". 6 more months and GUESS WHAT? They found over 500 pages of responsive documents. Do Not trust Ms. Brockman, or the internal EEOC system. Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. I will be providing the Bar license numbers for all members of Ms. Loos' office in the coming days. Be articulate, be accurate, but file BAR complaints when appropriate. This ends NOW. FYI I was advised by an EEOC supervisor within the last week, that they are pursuing a particular complaint, but that they KNOW the respective managers will lie. They went on to state, its out of our hands and can only forward the issue to HQ. Obviously this is common knowkledge. Therefore WHY HAVE EEOC COUNSELORS? Counsel, mediate or hit the trail.

I considered filing a complaint with the bar but when I researched it the only ones they will accept complaints from are other attorneys. Imagine that! You are right! All they ever try to do is delay and delay. I think it is best to get to the appeal case and that is where you may stand a chance. How about DOJ OPRSO on all of those ATF attorneys??

[Doc Holiday]

Its like this. Ms. Brockman started out strong. There was some hope. NOW, Ms. Brockman has become a puppet of Ms. Loos. Delay, ignore, double talk. If the agency has not done anything wrong, why exactly do they need to delay and withold docs. Ms. Loos has ignored her obligation to protect the agency and has defaulted to protecting corrupt managers. My complaint was ignored and I allowed an extra 60 days (past the ridiculous 180 days) before I requested a hearing. Then and only then did they acknowledge my complaint, accept it (in violation of the law) at which time my atty. said we should let them conduct the investigation. A year later, the "neutral" contract investigators (who are paid by ATF) came out asked my version, then basically asked ATF management "did you do this"? Managers said of course not. Investigation done. Then discovery starts. ATFs response to requests, "we cannot find any responsive documents at this time". 6 more months and GUESS WHAT? They found over 500 pages of responsive documents. Do Not trust Ms. Brockman, or the internal EEOC system. Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. I will be providing the Bar license numbers for all members of Ms. Loos' office in the coming days. Be articulate, be accurate, but file BAR complaints when appropriate. This ends NOW. FYI I was advised by an EEOC supervisor within the last week, that they are pursuing a particular complaint, but that they KNOW the respective managers will lie. They went on to state, its out of our hands and can only forward the issue to HQ. Obviously this is common knowkledge. Therefore WHY HAVE EEOC COUNSELORS? Counsel, mediate or hit the trail.

[Thor God of Thunder]

Hiram,

As you are personally aware the EEO process at ATF is nothing more than a runaround. It is filled with delays and false promises. Just like the internal grievance proceedures and the Ombudsmans office. When Tony Torres was in charge the delays and extensions went into years. Screw the timelines. He always used the excuse that he was understaffed. Phil Durham came along and provided a glimpse of hope and humanity. I really think Durham cared that employees who were damaged got fair treatment. Unfortunately Durham was replaced by Stacie Brockman and now EEO is up to the same old tricks.

Stay strong.

Phil Durham was one of the worst offenders. This is the reason that he was given a detail in EEO. He likes and has a habit of making things names, letters, and other documents disappear. I am sorry to break it to you Durham caring was just an act...sorry to break the bad news to you.

[Hiram A]

Please read below how helpful the ATF EEO Office is when it comes to processing my pending complaints. My complaints are being processed in concert with directions from Chief Counsel's Office. The ATF EEO Office is not independent and neutral as they claim to be. This has been going on since May 2009. Please begin at the bottom of this post and work yourself to the top. Thanks for your support and encouraging words. I really appreciate it. Thanks, Hiram _______________________________________ From: Brockman, Stacie D. To: Andrades, Hiram; Silas, Dora Cc: Yarborough, Tonya L. Sent: Tue Feb 23 16:40:08 2010 Subject: Re: Spin-Off Complaint Your concerns are noted and you will be in receipt of information regarding your case as soon as possible. *** NOTICE: This electronic transmission is confidential and intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy this message in its entirety (including all attachments). ________________________________________ From: Andrades, Hiram To: Brockman, Stacie D.; Silas, Dora Cc: Yarborough, Tonya L. Sent: Tue Feb 23 14:09:37 2010 Subject: RE: Spin-Off Complaint Mrs. Brockman: This is and continues to be unacceptable. I have been told that I will hear something “next week” for the last 4 weeks and/or every time I ask for a status from your office. I want my acceptance letter and determination for consolidation today. You have had ample time to process my complaints. I want to request that you consider turning over processing of my complaints to DOJ’s EEO Office since you cannot or will not process my complaints in a timely manner and have a conflict of interest, as I believe you continue to have contact with Eleaner Loos (involved in a reprisal incident) at ATF’s Chief Counsel’s Office in regards to the processing of my complaints and are the reasons for your unjustified delays and not investigating my claims. This is the only explanation. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Hiram Andrades Aldous Huxley "Experience is not what happens to a man. It is what a man does with what happens to him." From: Brockman, Stacie D. Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 1:11 PM To: Andrades, Hiram; Silas, Dora Cc: Yarborough, Tonya L. Subject: Re: Spin-Off Complaint Sensitivity: Private Mr. Andrades: as stated previously, a determination as to whether your complaint will be consolidated has yet to be determined. Ms.Yarborough will review your Feb 12th complaint to determine whether it would be appropriate for it to be consolidated with the case currently pending acceptance. You should receive correspondence from my office by the end of next week. Your spin-off complaints will be incorporated into the complaint files. Stacie D. Brockman Executive Assistant (EO) *** NOTICE: This electronic transmission is confidential and intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy this message in its entirety (including all attachments). ________________________________________ From: Andrades, Hiram To: Brockman, Stacie D.; Silas, Dora Cc: Yarborough, Tonya L. Sent: Tue Feb 23 10:26:58 2010 Subject: RE: Spin-Off Complaint Mrs. Brockman: Thank you for your response. While I can appreciate you being short staffed, it is resulting in the fragmentation of my complaints, which is prohibited by EEO pre-complaint processing regulations. Your office purports to remain neutral but not properly and timely processing my complaints is tantamount to taking the Agency’s side. What would prevent my complaints from being accepted for hearing? All your office needs to do is complete the proper forms and forward them to the EEOC so that my claims can move forward and not be held hostage in your office. Yes, my claims are being held hostage in your office. I have indicated consistently since May 2009, that I want my claims investigated and your office is not cooperating with me and processing my complaints in a neutral manner or in a manner consistent with the EEO pre-complaint processing regulations that you purport to follow. How many months do you need to accept my complaints for processing? This is really ridiculous! I can assure you that while frustrating, I will not stop until my complaints are properly processed and addressed. If you and your office continues to refuse to properly process my complaints and does not provide me with the counseling report and an acceptance letter for my pending claims, I will file additional complaints with other offices today. There is a conflict of interest with your office too. This is apparent in the manner that you have been processing my complaints. I appreciate your consideration and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Hiram Andrades Aldous Huxley "Experience is not what happens to a man. It is what a man does with what happens to him." From: Brockman, Stacie D. Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 9:27 AM To: Andrades, Hiram; Silas, Dora Cc: Yarborough, Tonya L. Subject: Re: Spin-Off Complaint Mr: Andrades: You were given the option to amend your complaint so that your issue(s) would be heard more quickly. As I stated yesterday, your complaint about this process has been noted and will included in the requisite files. Your complaints may be consoloidated IF they are like or related to the issues in pending complaints. As I stated yesterday, that determination has yet to be made. Our office has been short of staff, which has caused the delay. You have the option of making an election for a hearing after 120 days if the investigation is not complete by that time. You will be provided a counselor's report and acceptance letter if your complaints are accepted for processing. Stacie D. Brockman Executive Assistant (EO) *** NOTICE: This electronic transmission is confidential and intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy this message in its entirety (including all attachments). ________________________________________ From: Andrades, Hiram To: Brockman, Stacie D.; Silas, Dora; Andrades, Hiram Cc: Yarborough, Tonya L. Sent: Tue Feb 23 06:51:06 2010 Subject: Re: Spin-Off Complaint Mrs. Brockman, No, your email is not helpful. It was the EEO Office, specifically Mrs. Silas who advised me per Chief Counsel to amend my complaint so that it would not be investigated. When I contacted your office, it was with the intention to have this matter investigated. The option provided by Mrs. Silas ensured no investigation would be conducted. The only reason that this matter is not being investigated and was not investigated is that it involves Eleaner Loos, the Chief ATF EEO litigator. This is a cover-up and special consideration to Mrs. Loos is being provided. Please make sure you include this email in the complaint file of my disatisfaction with your office. Yes now you tell me that an amended complaint will not or may not result in an investigation. This is not the information I was provided from Mrs. Silas in May 2009. Per EEO procedures you are to consolidate my complaints without me requesting it. Fragmentation of complaints is a problem in the Federal sector and this is what is being done with my complaints, fragmentation. You fooled me once. I can assure you it will not happen again. With regard to my most recent complaint, your office has been working on the acceptance for months. What is the delay? My formal complaint was filed on October 16, 2009. You have 180 days to conduct an investigation. You are into 120 days. Can you explain why an investigator has not been assigned? Please provide me with my acceptance letter and EEO counselor's report as it relates to my pending complaints with your office. Your office is supposed to be independent and is not. Your office is working hand in hand with Chief Counsel's Office and I will have to summon you and your office's staff as witnesses due to your lack of independence and delay in processing my complaints. If I do not prevail, your mishandling of my complaints will be the basis of my appeal. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Hiram Andrades ******* NOTICE: This electronic transmission is confidential and intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy this message in its entirety (including all attachments). ________________________________________ From: Brockman, Stacie D. To: Andrades, Hiram; Silas, Dora Cc: Yarborough, Tonya L. Sent: Mon Feb 22 19:58:33 2010 Subject: Re: Spin-Off Complaint Mr. Andrades: If you are requesting your complaints be consolidated with the complaint currently pending before EEOC, you would have to make that request before the judge as you did your previous issue. If that request is granted, an investigation would NOT occur (as in the case of your previous issue) unless at the judge's order. Ms. Yarborough just recently received info on your recent formal complaint (non-selection), so it is being reviewed for acceptance. If it is accepted you will receive a counselor's report and the issue(s) will be investigated. If the issue(s) are like or related to the case currently pending acceptance it could be consolodated, per EEOC regulations. If not, it will be processed separately - that determination remains to be made. The issue that you requested be incorporated into the complaint currently pending before EEOC was in the process of being accepted. If it had been accepted you would have received a counselor's report with the acceptance letter. However, your complaint was amended by EEOC per your request, therefore that particular issue in its entirety will be heard by the AJ, regardless of whether a counselor's report exists. The remaining issues for which you were counseled initially remain in the acceptance process and if accepted, you will receive a counselors report and the investigation will begin. The email of your concerns about the way your complaints have been handled will be included in the counselor's report of your current (February) complaint, and will also be included in the case file of your previous complaint pending acceptance, per EEOC regulations. I hope that this information is helpful. Stacie D. Brockman Executive Assistant (EO) *** NOTICE: This electronic transmission is confidential and intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy this message in its entirety (including all attachments). ________________________________________ From: Andrades, Hiram To: Silas, Dora Cc: Brockman, Stacie D.; Yarborough, Tonya L. Sent: Thu Feb 18 12:18:12 2010 Subject: Spin-Off Complaint Mrs. Silas, You are one of the ATF Agency EEO Officer and I wanted to bring to your attention the inconsistency and mishandling of my complaints. I would like to express my dissatisfaction with the processing of my complaints that are pending with your office. As you indicated in our meeting in May, 2009, that per Chief counsel’s office, I should file a motion to amend the complaint and I did. This resulted in my complaint being held in abeyance without it being processed until the Administrative Judge made a ruling and there was no investigation conducted by your office. Issue #2, pending before the Administrative Judge that occurred on May 4, 2009, was not investigated. The formal complaint that I filed on October 16, 2009, that included Issue #2 and others have not been investigated. The formal complaint that I filed in February, 2010, I do not foresee this complaint being investigated. Additionally, my complaints are being fragmented and not consolidated. I have also not received the EEO Counselor’s Report or investigative report in Issue #2 pending before the Administrative Judge. As you may already know, there is a conflict of interest with Chief Counsel’s Office because they have already retaliated against me. This complaint should be investigated and incorporated into my complaints pending in your office and consolidated with my complaints pending before the Administrative Judge. Thanks, Hiram Andrades Aldous Huxley "Experience is not what happens to a man. It is what a man does with what happens to him." ________________________________________ ******* NOTICE: This electronic transmission is confidential and intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy this message in its entirety (including all attachments).

[Retired and loving it]

A very well made point Jumper. Those who have the authority to stop the unethical practices but let them conmtinue are as bad or worse than those who are actually doing the practices.

[Retired and loving it]

[quote name='Hiram A' date='20 February 2010 - 10:32 AM' timestamp='1266679954' post='203']
[size="3"]

I have decided to share my case regarding Eleaner Loos' retaliation against me. I believe this will help make ATF a better agency, a better place to work, will shine a light on ATF's dirty little secret and will take the power away from some of ATF's abusers.



Good luck to you Hiram but you will need more than luck to prevail. There has been little to no accountablility in upper level positions for decades now. That has remained unchamged through several Directors, got worse under Truscott, and what I read it still exists.

As to Loos, she will someday retire but she has had decades to train followers in her ways. What her shop needs is a good enema -- not tomorrow, not the next day, not a few weeks from now. It needs to be done today!

What happens when an ATF field person screws up (or even gets accussed of screwing up). The person is moved either to the hinterlands or (even worse for both parties) to HQ. What's wrong with moving some attorneys around like that? It's likely the only thing short of firing them that will give cause for change.

[Retired and loving it]

I have decided to share my case regarding Eleaner Loos' retaliation against me. I believe this will help make ATF a better agency, a better place to work, will shine a light on ATF's dirty little secret and will take the power away from some of ATF's abusers.

In 2009, I already had an EEO complaint pending where an investigation had been conducted and was pending before an Administrative Judge. (Protected EEO Activity)

At this time, I was assigned to the Office of OPRSO, Inspection Division. We (Inspection Division) were preparing to conduct an administrative and operational review of Chief Counsel's Office. By coincidence, I was assigned to Eleaner Loos' office (Chief Counsel's Office - Administration and Ethics)

On or about May 1, 2009, I met with Katherine Meng (Loos' subordinate) and Mr. Billy Hoover, AD Field Ops to attempt to settle my case. (Protected EEO Activity)

I sent Eleaner Loos an email notifying her that I was the team leader for her office. She never responded to my email or expressed any concerns to me. She did however contact my first line and second line supervisors.

On May 4, 2009, at 8:00AM, I was informed by the Inspection Leaders that I had been reassigned to another Chief Counsel Office (Disclosure and Forfeiture). I immediately knew that it was because of my EEO protected activity. I was embarrassed and humiliated in front of my peers and collegues in addition to experiencing other issues and physical/emotional ailments. The only reason that I was reassigned to another office was due to my protected EEO activity as described above.

Subsequently, I notified ATF's EEO Office and they did not assign an EEO counselor right away. The EEO Office also has not conducted an investigation into the matter or taken sworn statements from the management officials involved due to the fact that it involves Eleaner Loos, Associate Chief Counsel (Administration and Ethics). Valarie Bacon, (Eleaner Loos) and Katherine Meng from Eleaner Loos' office were the Agency's Representatives in my case until February 1, 2010 when two (2) Department of Justice Attorney were assigned to avoid the "appearance" of a conflict of interest as they stated. I am sure that Eleaner Loos is still manipulating the case in the background.

The Agency also refuses to provide and respond to timely submitted discovery in hopes to prevail or escape via a loophole.

It is my sincere hope that ATF will begin to act with the honor and integrity it demands of its employees and carry out there obligations relating to this and any other cases that they may have pending before an administrative judge or a federal judge. While the Agency should most certainly be concerned with liability, it should also accept and be concerned with responsibility and make sure that employees are treated fairly and with respect no matter on what side of the litigation fence they find themselves on.

Deputy Director Melson the non-cooperation of ATF in legal matters and similar types of ATF actions is what makes ATF employee's use hurtful and disrespectful language because when we (employees) have the courage to stand up and air our grievances, we are victimized again with the Agency's resistance and non-cooperation to the Agency's obligation to ascertain the truth with evidence and not self-serving statements or actions. I believe that if the Agency makes a mistake, they should own up to it and be truthful about it rather than hide behind litigation, engage in further cover-ups, act like what happened does not matter, retaliate and re-victimize the employee.

I believe that this is the change that ATF employees are looking for and this is the type of change that they can believe in.


Sincerely,


Hiram Andrades

[Thor God of Thunder]

I hope everything works out for you. I wish you the best of luck!

Sincerely,
Thor

[Hiram A]

I have decided to share my case regarding Eleaner Loos' retaliation against me. I believe this will help make ATF a better agency, a better place to work, will shine a light on ATF's dirty little secret and will take the power away from some of ATF's abusers.

In 2009, I already had an EEO complaint pending where an investigation had been conducted and was pending before an Administrative Judge. (Protected EEO Activity)

At this time, I was assigned to the Office of OPRSO, Inspection Division. We (Inspection Division) were preparing to conduct an administrative and operational review of Chief Counsel's Office. By coincidence, I was assigned to Eleaner Loos' office (Chief Counsel's Office - Administration and Ethics)

On or about May 1, 2009, I met with Katherine Meng (Loos' subordinate) and Mr. Billy Hoover, AD Field Ops to attempt to settle my case. (Protected EEO Activity)

I sent Eleaner Loos an email notifying her that I was the team leader for her office. She never responded to my email or expressed any concerns to me. She did however contact my first line and second line supervisors.

On May 4, 2009, at 8:00AM, I was informed by the Inspection Leaders that I had been reassigned to another Chief Counsel Office (Disclosure and Forfeiture). I immediately knew that it was because of my EEO protected activity. I was embarrassed and humiliated in front of my peers and collegues in addition to experiencing other issues and physical/emotional ailments. The only reason that I was reassigned to another office was due to my protected EEO activity as described above.

Subsequently, I notified ATF's EEO Office and they did not assign an EEO counselor right away. The EEO Office also has not conducted an investigation into the matter or taken sworn statements from the management officials involved due to the fact that it involves Eleaner Loos, Associate Chief Counsel (Administration and Ethics). Valarie Bacon, (Eleaner Loos) and Katherine Meng from Eleaner Loos' office were the Agency's Representatives in my case until February 1, 2010 when two (2) Department of Justice Attorney were assigned to avoid the "appearance" of a conflict of interest as they stated. I am sure that Eleaner Loos is still manipulating the case in the background.

The Agency also refuses to provide and respond to timely submitted discovery in hopes to prevail or escape via a loophole.

It is my sincere hope that ATF will begin to act with the honor and integrity it demands of its employees and carry out there obligations relating to this and any other cases that they may have pending before an administrative judge or a federal judge. While the Agency should most certainly be concerned with liability, it should also accept and be concerned with responsibility and make sure that employees are treated fairly and with respect no matter on what side of the litigation fence they find themselves on.

Deputy Director Melson the non-cooperation of ATF in legal matters and similar types of ATF actions is what makes ATF employee's use hurtful and disrespectful language because when we (employees) have the courage to stand up and air our grievances, we are victimized again with the Agency's resistance and non-cooperation to the Agency's obligation to ascertain the truth with evidence and not self-serving statements or actions. I believe that if the Agency makes a mistake, they should own up to it and be truthful about it rather than hide behind litigation, engage in further cover-ups, act like what happened does not matter, retaliate and re-victimize the employee.

I believe that this is the change that ATF employees are looking for and this is the type of change that they can believe in.


Sincerely,


Hiram Andrades