EFTA00206370¶
Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:15 AM¶
RE: Government’s Position on Several Pending Issues? Still Waiting for Answer¶
Excellent point. Please make OPR aware of this situation so that we can provide guidance. We need to clarify this point with Cassell before he files his motion on Friday. is right: this is a classic smear campaign in order to distract the court from the legal/statutory issue before it.¶
From: (USAFLS)¶
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 8:40 PM¶
To: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS)¶
Cc:¶
(USAFLS); . (USAFLS)¶
Subject: Re: Government’s Position on Several Pending Issues? Still Waiting for Answer¶
At the risk of stating the obvious, Cassell’s approach seems to be to ratchet up the attacks against the office whenever he doesn’t get exactly what he wants. Most of his e-mail deals with his efforts to embarrass the Office rather than the legal issue before Judge Marra.¶
That being said, his statement that OPR “has begun an investigation” is not only irrelevant, but possibly incorrect. Since there is pending litigation, my guess is that OPR has not yet begun an investigation. My understanding based on another experience as well as on comments from OPR at the NAC is that they specifically do not begin investigations while there is pending litigation on the same subject matter as the referral. The fact that Cassell is the one who wrote the letter that we forwarded to OPR matters here as well. Cassell simply made an accusation and he is now trying to use the fact of an OPR investigation to give the illusion that there must be some merit to the allegation. I could be mistaken and it may just be semantics, but he seems wrong on this.¶
From: (USAFLS)¶
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 07:39 PM¶
To: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS)¶
Cc: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS)¶
Subject: FW: Government’s Position on Several Pending Issues? Still Waiting for Answer¶
Here is Cassell’s response to our letter. On March 1, 2010, I sent an e-mail to at OPR, to whom I had referred Cassell’s letter asking for an inquiry. I asked if OPR had a policy about complainants having direct contact with investigating attorneys, since I was reluctant to provide name in the absence of consent. has not responded to my e-mail. I intend to provide the general phone number for OPR to Cassell.¶