ErbeHearingEmails

							From: Thomas Muther Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:07 PM To: Erbe, Robert P; Cc: cory voorhis Subject: RE: Bob,

Let me respond to your paragraphs/points individually:

1) Does your below email actually say that it is unprofessional for us to share email communications from you with Mr. Voorhis – our client? Emails that have a direct bearing on Mr. Voorhis’ case? I have no idea what ethical standards you prescribe for yourself, but I feel it is both ethically and professionally essential not to withhold information from our client. If your bar rules require different, so be it. I am just glad I am not a member of your bar. Again, if you wish to raise security concerns regarding the fact that individuals have posted disagreement with ICE’s position regarding Mr. Voorhis, I welcome the opportunity to respond to this type of disingenuous – and frankly paranoid – argument. Since when is verbal disagreement with the government cause for security concern? I guess your concepts of free speech are different from mine. 2) Adrienne has sent numerous emails to you over the past several months inquiring about the status of Mr. Voorhis’ back pay. Clearly you have been unable to secure any type of movement on the part of the Agency. For this reason, a petition for enforcement needed to be filed. I know of no ethical or professional obligation to provide you advanced notice of filings, especially given your unwillingness to move the Agency along in getting Mr. Voorhis the back pay he is entitled to under the agreement. 3) Quite frankly, your opinion regarding the standards of professional behavior (see number 1 above) mean very little to me. 4) Thank you. This will prevent me from spending unnecessary time on emails such as this. Despite your feelings to the contrary, I will continue to share this correspondence with our client. 5) I presume this comment is yet one more example of your understanding of what professionalism entails. See my response to paragraph 3 above. In that I presume this is the last email communication I will be receiving from you regarding Mr. Voorhis’ case, I have copied Joan on this email exchange.

Regards,

-Tom Thomas F. Muther, Jr. Attorney at Law

From: Erbe, Robert P [mailto:robert.erbe@xxxxx.xxx] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:51 AM To: Thomas Muther; Erbe, Robert P Subject:

Tom and Adrienne It is very unfortunate and unprofessional of you to include or disclose our email communications to Mr Voorhis. You are simply fueling the fire. The safety and security concerns I have do not involve Mr Voorhis. I know you all think this is funny but if you look at the blog pages on the denver post and other sites there are people who think we are wrongfully persecuting Mr Voorhis. I have only done my job and have been totally cooperative with you both in discovery and trying to move this case forward. I have been accused my Mr Voorhis of misconduct which includes an allegation that I delayed discovery in this case. Since you all never filed a motion to compel or even filed a complaint about discovery that claim is obviously false. Also, I don't know why you fail to communicate with me prior to filing anything. My legal assistant just sent me an email that you faxed me a petition for enforcement. Not sure what this is about since you never told me anything about any breach of the agreement. I am very disappointed in how you have conducted yourselves in this case. While this is an emotionally and politically charged case, I expected more of a professional type behavior from both of you. I willl no longer communicate with either of you via email or telephone call. Any future correspondence with be by official letter. I guess since the evidence, law and facts are not on your side you have chosen to attack the people.

Robert Erbe Associate Legal Advisor OPLA Labor & Employment Law Division (520) 940-xxxx (cell)

From: Thomas Muther <Tom@xxxxxx.com> To: Erbe, Robert P <robert.erbe@xxxxxx.xxx>; Cc: cory voorhis Sent: Tue Nov 17 07:54:19 2009 Subject: RE: Weber Dep Bob,

I realize that you work for DHS, but I don’t quite think that the media and Mr. Voorhis’ family have quite made the terrorist watch list just yet. Feel free to make that argument, though. I am sure the local media will have fun with it. If we do not receive your formal notice by the end of the week, we will raise the issue with the AJ ourselves to ensure that a resolution to your problems are addressed sooner rather than later. -Tom

From: Erbe, Robert P [mailto:robert.erbe@xxxxx.xxx] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 4:24 PM To: Thomas Muther; Subject: RE: Weber Dep

Tom

I just checked and it a relatively small conference room that cannot accommodate that many people. It has 15 chairs around a conference table. We will need room for our files, etc. I will file a motion with the Board designating this facility as the VTC conference room and let you file your objection. I don’t mind if Mr. Voorhis’ family members are present (wife, mother, etc.) but I don’t see the need to have other people present. I am responsible for providing a suitable conference room for the hearing. I met my obligation. I will try and file it later this week.

I don’t mind if you try to find a suitable facility but it must have adequate security. I was going to object to using the MSPB Denver Field Office anyway due to security concerns.

Bob

Robert P. Erbe Associate Legal Advisor Office of Principal Legal Advisor Labor & Employment Law Division U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement

From: Thomas Muther [mailto:Tom@xxxxxx.com] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 3:41 PM To: Erbe, Robert P; Subject: RE: Weber Dep

If you need a number, how about 10. It shouldn’t be any more than that. With the federal presence in Denver, I guarantee you that there is more than one VTC location. We would be happy to help assist in locating one. I will submit our formal objection to the location when you actually provide it. We cannot be expected to object to a speculative location.

-Tom

From: Erbe, Robert P [mailto:robert.erbe@xxxxx.xxx] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 3:37 PM To: Thomas Muther; Subject: RE: Weber Dep

MSPB hearings are generally open to the public but there is no such right. Also, I looked at the MSPB AJ Handbook and we are under no such obligation. I simply must find a suitable conference room for the attendees. The Agency cannot be expected to find a VTC conference room which will permit an unknown amount of individuals. In addition, we are using a conference room outside of the Field Office Director. It would disrupt Agency operations to permit members of the public to come in and out as they please. Even if this was at the Denver Field Office, we would not be able to allow members of the public into that small conference room. The most that would fit in the VTC room would be the attorneys, the appellant and the witness. I suggest you file something with the judge.

Robert P. Erbe Associate Legal Advisor Office of Principal Legal Advisor Labor & Employment Law Division U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement 6431 South Country Club Road Tucson, Arizona 85706

From: Thomas Muther [mailto:Tom@xxxxxx.com] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 3:08 PM To: Erbe, Robert P; Subject: RE: Weber Dep

Then we must object to this location for the hearing. As you know, Mr. Voorhis has the right to a public hearing. The Agency can most certainly provide access to the hearing room to members of the public.

-Tom

From: Erbe, Robert P [mailto:robert.erbe@xxxxx.xxx] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 2:45 PM To: Thomas Muther; Subject: RE: Weber Dep

No, it will not be open to the public. The only people who will be able to have access to the conference room will be the attorneys, Mr. Voorhis, myself, and the witnesses.

Robert P. Erbe Associate Legal Advisor Office of Principal Legal Advisor Labor & Employment Law Division U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement 6431 South Country Club Road Tucson, Arizona 85706

From: Thomas Muther [mailto:Tom@xxxxxx.com] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 2:42 PM To: Erbe, Robert P; Subject: RE: Weber Dep

I would plan for a large contingent of observers. Since the last hearing the press in town has been somewhat excited for the continuation of proceedings to begin. Is the DRO office going to be open to the public?

-Tom

From: Erbe, Robert P [mailto:robert.erbe@xxxxx.xxx] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 2:39 PM To: Thomas Muther; Subject: RE: Weber Dep

Yes, the Denver Field Office VTC room is booked with another hearing. They want me now to find a VTC location in Denver. I had a call from Judge Cassidy’s paralegal.

Robert P. Erbe Associate Legal Advisor Office of Principal Legal Advisor Labor & Employment Law Division U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement

From: Thomas Muther [mailto:Tom@xxxxxx.com] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 2:30 PM To: Erbe, Robert P; Subject: RE: Weber Dep

I have been out of the office for a week so I may not be up to date on the latest regarding the location of hearing. I thought the last email from the AJ indicated that he was going to be getting the MSPB courtroom here in Denver. Has that changed?

-tom

From: Erbe, Robert P [mailto:robert.erbe@xxxxx.xxx] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 2:27 PM To: Erbe, Robert P; Thomas Muther Subject: RE: Weber Dep Adrienne & Tom I have to secure a VTC facility for the Voorhis hearing. Looks like I can get a room where we did the depositions. I know you guys are busy but I need to know if I need to reserve a big conference room for a bunch of people or can get away with a small conference room for just a witness. If I can get a VTC room there, the address will be 12445 East Caley Avenue, Centennial, Colorado 80111.

Thanks!

Bob