The letter exposes precisely how ICE agents and U.S. prosecutors allegedly obstructed the investigation into the multiple murders – many of which were carried out with the participation of an ICE informant .

Gonzalez’ letter also set off a political firestorm that led his bosses at DEA to retaliate against him by giving him a negative job-performance rating, he claims. The retaliation was prompted by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, who went to officials at the Department of Justice to complain about the letter, Gonzalez alleges.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents obtained by Narco News shed additional light on the DEA’s treatment of Gonzalez in the wake of his letter of protest.

Some of the information in the FOIA documents was redacted for alleged privacy protection and other purposes. Where possible, Narco News has reconstructed the redacted material – which will be noted by the use of parentheses.

Gonzalez’ job-performance appraisal

On August 20, 2004, some six months after writing the letter to ICE supervisor Gaudioso and U.S. Attorney Sutton in San Antonio, Gonzalez received a performance appraisal from DEA brass.

In his appraisal for the prior year, 2003, he received “outstanding” or “excellent” marks in all seven performance categories: directing and organizing; administering and controlling; managing and developing; EEO/Affirmative Action plans and goals; liaison/coordination; FOIA/Privacy Act compliance; and recruitment.

Again, in 2004, Gonzalez scored an “outstanding” or “excellent” in all categories, except one, where he was marked down two grades from the prior year – going from an “outstanding” to a “fully successful.” The downgrade occurred in the liaison/coordination category, the FOIA records show. Although still deemed an acceptable grade, the downgrade was clearly a mark against his career, and the narrative used to justify the downgrade was stinging – and focused on the Feb. 24, 2004, letter.

From Gonzalez’s 2004 performance appraisal :

One of (DEA) Administrator Tandy’s priorities is Developing Partnerships – Resolving Baggage. The Administrator, Deputy Administrator and upper DEA management were critical however of SAC (Special Agent in Charge) Gonzalez’ handling of a sensitive issue with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that involved the evacuation of our agents from (Ciudad Juárez), Mexico. Tension developed between DEA and ICE in (El Paso) over the incident, and relationships with the Mexican Government were a serious concern. The HQs Ops (Headquarters Operations) Chiefs of DEA and ICE agreed to conduct a swift and independent fact-finding review by DEA/ICE ASACs (Assistant Special Agents in Charge) from outside of the (El Paso) area to determine threat potential to DEA employees. Before the review was completed and an assessment could be made, SAC Gonzalez, knowing of the ongoing review and sensitivities, and without consultation with DEA HQs (headquarters) wrote a volatile letter to the (El Paso) ICE SAC (Gaudioso) which fueled the animosity and was believed to be responsible for bringing on press and outside inquiries that have the potential to jeopardize a federal prosecution. SAC Gonzalez used extremely poor judgment and his actions made already tense relationships with ICE and the U.S. Attorney’s Office worse.

Gonzalez’ response to the negative comments in his appraisal :

… This is an issue that does not belong in my performance appraisal because the record clearly shows that the individuals that showed poor judgment in this matter are employed by other agencies and not the DEA. However, since you’ve chosen to make this an issue with me, you have left me no alternative but to defend myself.

To begin with, the (letter) issue was not a liaison/collaboration matter, and it had nothing to do with developing partnerships or resolving baggage as written in the appraisal. This was a threat against the life of a DEA agent and his family, stemming from a criminal matter involving multiple murders perpetrated by drug traffickers in Mexico, who were aided and abetted by a U.S. informant working for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with the apparent knowledge of his control agents. These illegal actions were conducted under color of law, on foreign soil, against foreign nationals and U.S. citizens alike, without any authority but with the possible knowledge of a federal prosecutor. This was not about the evacuation of our agents from (Ciudad Juárez) as you stated, and the sensitive issue here was not so much the evacuation of our personnel, but rather the possible misconduct of U.S. officials.

The letter came about as a result of information I learned following a conversation with the Chief of Operations during which he asked me if I was making any headway as far as getting information from my ICE counterpart. I replied to (name blacked out) that I was deferring all action in the investigation of the threat to the Mexico City office, and that the (DEA El Paso) Division was engaged only in supporting the personnel and families that had been evacuated from (Ciudad Juárez). (Name blacked out) then suggested that as SAC of the Division, I should get more involved in a fact-finding role and I of course followed his suggestion. It is unclear to me what you meant by the statement “relationships with the Mexican government were a serious concern.” What relationships? Ours? ICE’s? The U.S. Attorney’s Office? If relationships with the Mexican government were a serious concern to ICE and the U.S. Attorney’s Office this was difficult to discern at the time because all the actions perpetrated by the ICE informant were being conducted without the knowledge of our Mexican counterparts, and intentionally being perpetrated without admitting any wrongdoing. In fact ICE officials wrote a misleading letter to Mexican officials where they clearly misrepresented the role of their informant.

To say there was tension is an understatement. When ICE officials and a federal prosecutor stand in the way of an investigation of a threat against a DEA agent’s life, there’s bound to be tension. Their actions prevented Mexican federal officials from attempting to capture one of the principal suspects whom was identified as a supervisor in the Chihuahua State Police (Commander Miguel Loya Gallegos). This did not go over well with us or with the Mexican Federal Police supervisor who had arrived in (Ciudad Juárez) with 80 federal agents to effect the arrest of the state policeman as well as to arrest others. The so-called independent fact-finding review conducted by DEA and ICE ASACs was an accommodation to ICE and a mockery to those of us who knew the facts. I’m still puzzled by this fact-finding team, and given the present circumstances I must question its independence. An independent fact-finding team would have consisted of Inspectors from the Office of Inspections and not personnel from the Operations Division simply because personnel from Operations (my Division and the Mexico City office), to include myself and Assistant Regional Director Alfredo Ortega, were already reporting facts to Headquarters on a daily basis as soon as they became known.

It is worthy of note that neither I nor the Regional Director in Mexico City was allowed to review the results of the so-called independent fact-finding team. I have been denied the opportunity to review the report, and as a result I’ve been prevented from making the appropriate comments to which I’m entitled to because the review dealt with issues in my area of responsibility. What is the purpose of a fact-finding or management review if the managers involved aren’t allowed to see the results? Please inform me of how many other SACs have been denied access to so-called management or fact-finding reviews conducted in their areas of responsibility. I want to know if I am being treated differently from other similarly situated Senior Executives in the DEA.

My letter holding the ICE SAC responsible for the actions of his agents and their informant, after (about a dozen) human beings had been found dead and buried in the backyard of a house in (Ciudad Juárez) was most appropriate under the circumstances because I was exercising my sworn duty to enforce the law and my obligations to report alleged misconduct and protect my agency and its employees. Your statement that my letter fueled animosity is nothing more than speculation and self-benefiting conjecture at the behest of the U.S. Attorney (Johnny Sutton) clearly for his own reasons. Mexican officials are not upset with the letter (to ICE SAC Gaudioso) because they have not seen it. They are upset for having been misled by ICE and because several Mexican citizens died unnecessarily as a result. I had every right to express my outrage with the situation, and what I wrote to my counterpart at ICE was the truth, and if telling the truth caused animosity at ICE and the U.S. Attorney’s Office so be it. Your belief that my letter was responsible for bringing on the press and outside inquiries does not constitute fact, nor does it parallel close to any fact. My letter could not possibly have brought on press inquiries because the press has not seen it. If they had, it would have been printed in its entirety by now.

How does the truth jeopardize a federal prosecution? Are we not supposed to tell the truth? I recall you, the Chief of Operations, and the Administrator being outraged with ICE and this whole situation until the U.S. Attorney (Sutton) protested. After that the three of you were suddenly outraged at me. Amazing! To say that my letter jeopardized a federal prosecution is ludicrous because the information in the letter is also contained in many other documents generated during the investigation that are discoverable anyway. For example, if my letter is discoverable so is the time line of events prepared by the Juárez Resident Office, as well as the report prepared by the fact-finding team. Additionally, at what point does the alleged outrage prompted by my letter become more important than the outrage that should have been caused by the actions of the ICE informant (Jesus Contreras), the threat against our agent and his family, and the murder of human beings under these circumstances? What was of foremost importance at the time was resolving the threat against our agent and his family, which had a higher overriding interest than any pending prosecution matter. In light of the facts in this matter, your characterization of my writing the letter as “extremely poor judgment” is out of line considering that I reported crimes and procedures that ultimately had an adverse impact on the safety of our agents as well as on the lives of human beings.

If my actions made relations with ICE and the U.S. Attorney’s Office worse it wasn’t because I did anything wrong but rather because I stood up for our agency and refused to go along with a façade.

Stay tuned for more from the FOIA records on this case…..