Outsider

Guts indeed. It is a sad fact of human nature that a large percentage of those who rise to high levels in a bureaucracy do so with a political agenda in tow. When such bureaucrats are then given power to make regulation with the force of law in defiance of the legislative body, because they have an Executive Branch at their back which is more than willing to rule by decree (Executive Order) where it cannot gain legislative approval, then our country is in very dire straights. This celebration is in truly poor taste, not to mention out of step with duty and ethics, but it is revealing. The ATF is not the only agency getting the benefit of authoritarian power via the regulatory pen. The NLRB, the EPA and others are doing the same. Now we have essentially the core elements of the Dream Act being implemented by the Executive Branch with no legislative authority. We elected a King apparently, and a very childish one at that. When he can't have his way, he is not only shocked that the legislature or the public cannot see how much better we all would be if we would just accept his greater intellect and benevolent policies, but he can't accept a shred of responsibility for his failures and always has his real or imagined political enemies to blame instead. Now he has found that he doesn't NEED a legislature after all. He has the almighty Executive pen!

Not to get too off track here, but whatever one feels about the value of the multiple rifle sales reporting regulation, it has come about in a blatant end run around Congress and is symptomatic of a dangerous pattern. Rather than holding a celebration, good public servants (like those of you here have shown yourselves to be) should be reluctant to implement something so obviously without legitimate authority of law. Sadly, the men who call the shots at ATF are, generally speaking, not good public servants. They are polical animals at their core.

Man, I love this place! "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing", or that's as best as I can remember the quote. It looks like good men and women are about to do something. I like it!

Last week a long term investigation by ATF Phoenix was concluded with volumes of arrests, evidence seizures, etc. The case displayed the good work that Phoenix Agents are capable of producing.

Oh, didn't hear about it?

That's because no self respecting media outlet is naive enough to get sucked into assisting Thomasson's attempt to cover up Gunrunner.

It's a damn shame too. Thomasson became so self important in his roll as ATF's "Media Czar" that he actually believed that the press worked for him. He has embarrassed himself and the agency in every postion he has held at ATF so this comes as no surprise.

This is a classic example of why those of us outside of law enforcement are so adamant about tossing the bad eggs from the carton. While it is easy to brand some critics as anti cop, the reality is what we want to see are the successes by good agents/officers and not see their work obscured or tarnished by the self-aggrandizing, career focused truth-twisters who don't care who they step or cheat on so long as they advance with impunity. So long as these losers you all are exposing here remain unpunished, the good men and their fine work will not get the credit so well deserved. I want to have reason to LIKE the ATF as an agency, not just the individual agents I know are honest and helpful.

I have received more than one appeal, from a relatively new gun rights org, seeking signatures for a petition to Congress calling for the defunding of ATF. To be honest, even a few months ago I would have put my name on it without hesitation. On the one hand, the Gunrunner revelations could easily have pushed my buttons even more. But since I was introduced to this site, and have had the great experience of reading so much from people inside the agency who share many of the same concerns I have had (for years) on the outside, I find I am not willing to add my name to that petition at this time. I have seen a different side that, previously, I could only have hoped existed. That took a certain faith that now I have ample evidence of. In spite of the occasional voice who will, in effect, defend the agency against this kind of public exposure, I see only hope on these pages. It is not only the agents who have this venue to vent in without concern for repercussion who find great comfort here. I don't think I am the only member of the public at large who has found the same.

I also voted Yes- for media and Congress only. I wish that there was a way to recognize the good agents properly without putting a target on their backs. Meanwhile, it is critical to keep in the agency those who are committed to doing their jobs properly and for the right reasons, and who may also have had experience with retaliation and getting smacked down by the system. Right now, sadly, that means keeping your anonymity. Those of you who fit that description are precisely the ones who should, if things are to be turned around, be helping change the culture by naming those who need to be weeded out and perhaps to take management positions where they can help the field agents run things as they should. I know there are some who don't want to be in management for any reason, just as in other fields of employment. But good leaders need to rise up if a clear path is opened for them. I realize that's a big "if" at this point.

I am new here, gentlemen, and you will see in my profile that I am not part of ATF, just your average civilian with business in the firearms industry. This particular discussion brought back to my mind a situation experienced by then AUSA in Waco, Bill Johnston, in 1999. News had recently broken about use of pyrotechnic gas grenades on April 19, 1993 despite years of FBI insistence that nothing like that had ever happened. While much is in dispute about whether or not this was a factor in the fire, as always the cover up was worse than the original issue. I am quoting a fairly long passage below from a letter written by Johnston to AG Reno, in August of '99, trying to express to her that she is not being told everything she should be. I think you will find he is dealing with something that will ring with familiarity to many here. He previously has noted that he received both a phone call (at home!) and a letter from an attorney in the DOJ Tort Branch (Marie Hagen) blasting him for allowing an investigator access to the evidence lockers, which led to discovery of the rounds in question. Though he had gone through proper channels for approval, he quickly begins feeling the heat. I hope you will find it worth the read, and I know it will bring up unpleasant reminders for some. Still, I think it is a good fit here.

As you recall, when Congress investigated the Davidian matter in 1995, I was called as a witness. Once it was determined that I would have to testify, I was kept at a distance from the Department. It was not the Department that brought me to Washington to prepare for the hearing, but the Treasury Department. Although I was treated courteously by Richard Scruggs, I was not assisted by anyone with DOJ in any real way in preparing for my testimony. In fact, I was handled as if I had some strain of intellectual leprosy. A couple of days before the hearing, an AUSA named Zipperstein told me that I needed to write out a statement of my recollection of the events. This, he said, was so that I could have these matters placed into the record in case I was not given the opportunity to have my say on certain matters. An office and computer were provided to me to prepare this statement. For the next several hours, I worked feverishly on my statement. Upon completion, I walked proudly to Mr. Zipperstein’s office with statement in hand only to be told that I did not need to do a statement after all. When I asked what had changed and why I would not be allowed to give the statement, Zipperstein told me simply that nothing had changed – he just did not need for me to do the statement. Naively, stupidly, I accepted his response. With the hearing beginning the next day, I made my way down the street to the Treasury Department where Undersecretary Ron Noble, who was neither ashamed of me, nor afraid of what I might say, talked with me about some of the issues which might arise at the hearing. I mention the foregoing about the previous experience because I anticipate the same or worse may occur. In fact, it may have already begun. Last week, a fax which originated with the Department of Justice came to me. The fax was in three pages. The first was a copy of handwritten notes which had apparently been written by a paralegal who assisted in the Davidian trial preparation. The notes were of an interview of an FBI agent which was probably conducted in 1993. The notes reflect that the agent said that he fired ferret rounds and a “military gas round.” An accompanying document is an outline of the witness testimony which bears the name of the paralegal and my name. This suggests that I was present during the interview. Although I do not specifically recall the interview, I was probably present if the document says I was. I can certainly tell you that, assuming I heard the entire conversation, the term “military gas round” would not have meant anything to me at the time. The third page of the fax was an FBI report of an agent who heard radio traffic about a military round being fired. It has been suggested to me that these documents were sent to me to “hang over my head,” or to say that I’d better look out stirring this matter up, as I may have to explain this paralegal’s memo. So long as it is the truth “hanging over my head,” I am not afraid. I will not be intimidated by anyone with the Department of Justice. I will assist the Congress or any other body who seeks the truth in this case.

I mentioned above that I think that I understand why Marie Hagen was so upset that I had worked with Mike McNulty in allowing him access to the Davidian evidence. I believe that the three pages faxed to me last week hold the answer. At the top of the typewritten document, someone has written, “…privileged.” At the bottom it appears that someone wrote, “DOJ witness do not disclose.” It appears that someone was making decisions about whether the plaintiffs in the civil case, or others, should have access to these documents. It is my own hypothesis that the Torts Branch has had these documents for years, and that they decided not to make them available to the plaintiffs. The Torts Branch or some other component also apparently decided not to let you know about these documents. Certainly, as attention focused in the past year on the fire issue, the full import of these documents must have been known to whomever possessed them. I now wonder whether or not you were ever advised that two Deputy U.S. Marshals in Waco were falsely accused of leaking raid information to the media back in 1993. These allegations were completely false, if not malicious. Not only was no action taken against the accusers who were both Deputy Marshals as well, but one of them has since been promoted. Similarly, although two ATF supervisors lied to the Rangers about whether or not they knew the element of surprise had been lost before the raid, representatives of the Department of Justice chose to not prosecute these individuals – and they were rehired with ATF. This sore of non-accountability as described above cuts at the credibility of the Department of Justice.

Bear in mind that Johnston was involved in the investigation and planning before the raid at Waco, and was one of the prosecutors in the criminal trials of 12 of the survivors. He had called for ATF to stop their review of the raid, while the siege was underway, as they were creating Brady material. He was on the agency's side throughout, but when he found there had been false testimony from any agency he was not interested in condoning it. His career had a sad ending. Under pressure from the retaliation within his own Department, he foolishly withheld some of his own notes and was later scapegoated for the whole issue he was trying to expose in his letter above. His job was going to be toast anyway, but he did make his own situation worse. Overall, I think it perfectly illustrates why things have to change at last, so that the kind of punishment some of you have experienced does not continue, and people are held accountable at all levels.