Thursday, April 21, 2005

... "storming down to my office"

The story is true, except for the part about "storming down to my office".

A few weeks before Mr. Nanos was named acting director, I saw Mr. Nanos walking in front of my office, at that time near the elevator in the Ad bldg. I asked Mr. Nanos if he had received some documents related to the land I sold him adjacent mine, a part of which he was legally obligated to return to me. Prior to this time my relationship with Mr. Nanos had been entirely cordial, and I was quite surprised by Mr. Nanos's agressive response to my innocent question. During this "conversation", Mr. Nanos threatened to retaliate against me if I took action to protect my interests in the property. This threat was witnessed, and a signed affidavit of the witness is available.

After determining Mr. Nanos's concerns, I offered a win-win solution to Mr. Nanos. His response was to reject it out of hand, forcing me to sue him to protect my interests in the property. This was filed in open court and so is a matter of public record, First Judicial District Court Case No D-0132-CV-200300016. As Mr. Nanos had threatened to retaliate against me, the court provided me with a restraining order to prevent Mr. Nanos from harming my interest in the property while the case was decided - again, filed in open court. Eventually Mr. Nanos agreed to a stipultated judgement giving me everything I asked for in the lawsuit, plus $500 for my attorney's fees. The stipulated judgement, filed in open court, did not include the standard line stating neither party could discuss the case as I believed at that time, as I do now, that the facts related to Mr. Nanos's behavior should be known.

On the advice of the Albuqueque DOE Employee Concerns Office, I have filed copies of all documents related to this incident and the related lawsuit with them and with S-6, since an established pattern of behavior of threats and abusive behavior is taken into account when determining Q-clearance suitability, and can be grounds for revoking a Q-clearance.

I also made the regents of UC aware of the case, although their response was simply to state that they believe handling the case through the courts was the correct way to resolve the issue.

I urge any of you who have similarly experienced threatening behavior of a LANL manager to document the incident and file it with S-6. While I fully inderstand the worries about retaliation expressed in this blog - especially as Mr. Nanos has specifically threatened to retaliate against me - without documentation it is hard to establish the needed accountability to correct a problem.

Dr. J. Tinka Gammel
1047 49th St, Los Alamos
(posted from my home email account)

PS: The 26 Mar. 2003 LA Monitor had the article below at the bottom of the
front page. This was orginally at
but I believe their electronic copy of this was later lost in a computer mishap (and I apologize to them if my electronic reconstruction of the article has any errors). Like all such articles, it has a few inaccuracies caused by the reporter not having first-hand knowledge of the incidents, but gets the basics right and should help clarify the issues in the lawsuit, which at that time was still in progress.

Temporary injunction won by Gammel
Monitor Staff Writer

Western Area resident J. Tinka Gammel has won a temporary injunction barring Los Alamos National Laboratory Interim Director George "Pete" Nanos from using a strip of land between their two properties for a utilities easement, according to District Court records.

The lawsuit, which also names Los Alamos County as a defendant, is headed for court and the attorneys for the two private parties won’t talk about it. "When it’s in court, I can’t comment on it," said Oliver Miles, Nanos’ attorney. Jack Hardwick, Gammel’s lawyer didn’t return calls.

Court records show that on Nov. 14, 2002, Gammel, who is also a Los Alamos National Laboratory employee, sold a lot to Nanos for $219,000. With the sale, there was an agreement to adjust the lot line between their two properties, but until the lines were finalized, the
Nanoses granted Gammel an access easement to what court documents call "the strip."

Court documents state that on Dec. 10, Gammel showed Nanos a preliminary plat reflecting lot line adjustments and, three days later, she asked Nanos if he had reviewed the plan. "George Peter Nanos became very angry with Gammel and told her, without explaining that he ‘had decided to do it another way,’ and threatened that Gammel had better not interfere ‘or she would never get the property [the strip] back," according to the court filing.

Several days later, Nanos granted a 10-foot wide utilities easement to the county and Gammel, after learning about the easement, requested that Nanos and the county vacate the easement. Neither has done so, the filing states. Gammel’s filing calls Nanos’ actions a "constructive fraud" by unfairly exploiting owning the strip and that Nanos and Los Alamos County "will be unjustly enriched" if the easement isn’t rescinded.

Further, Gammel "is reasonably concerned, based upon the surreptitious conduct of George Peter Nanos, that (he) will authorize or direct the trenching for utilities and construction of an underground electrical line within the easement without the consent of Gammel." Gammel’s suit contends that the strip has vegetation of "unique value" to her and that Nanos has other ways to get electricity to his property.

In the court documents, neither Nanos nor the county would guarantee not to do work in the easement, with Gammel’s lawyer stating that Assistant County Attorney Dan Gonzales called Gammel’s suit "frivolous." There are no filings from Nanos’ attorney or Los Alamos County in the court file.

Assistant County Attorney Dan Gonzales said the county is trying to facilitate another easement that would give Nanos access to utilities and would be happy to vacate the easement back to Gammel. "Gammel has sued Nanos and the county and the county is really a nominal defendant," he said. "We were named as a defendant because Nanos granted this easement to us."

Posted by Tinka to LANL: The Real Story at 4/21/2005 11:24:27 AM

This post by Tinka is as informative as the ones that described the CREM incident. Note that these events occured in 2003, over 2 years ago, and there has been no resolution. What does this tell you about LANL's, UC's, and DOE's anti-retaliation policies? LANL, UC, and DOE are totally immoral.

And how many blog readers have complained to Domenici et all about what happened to the DX folks? Will any of you complain about how Tinka was treated? You might argue that the threatening comments were not job oriented, but threatening someone is wrong, no matter what the content of the threat. Threatening on LANL property is wrong. Nanos was wrong. LANL/UC/DOE should act.
Tinka is one of many who have suffered the abusive and childish attacks of Nanos. It is typical in SET meetings for Nanos to accost subordinates. There are numerous accounts of his tantrums being thrown in DX, NIS, T and a few others. If there were this many documented abuses attributed to anyone but him their badge would have been taken long ago. But you know DOE will never admit to placing someone of questionable mental stability in charge of a nuclear weapons laboratory. So, we’ll just have to play along with the charade even though the lunatic is running the asylum and the Emperor has no clothes.
I sure wouldn't want to be anywhere near that easement when the neighborhood block party is thrown! Tinka, thanks for your account.
Tinka,what a brave soul you are! Thanks for sharing your informative story about the property incident on 49th street. Rumors and mutterings regarding the director's house and property have been surfacing all over the place for quite some time now. Most people just shake their heads and wink.
Have you read some of the postings related to your situation in the last story of this blog, "Imagine What It Must be Like" (Wednesday, April 13,2005)?
A lot of people know a little bit of the story. You were able to fill in the gaps.
Finished my Annual Security Refresher Training about a week ago. One of the incidents requiring mandatory reporting to Security is any restraining order placed against you.

Would be interesting to know whether the Director reported it as required in this case.

You did report it to DOE Abq, so they have the responsibility to verify I suppose. Knowing the story, it is unclear what, if anything, LANL security did, or will do.
LANL Security will do nothing they know who butters their bread and are as afraid of Nanos as anyone. Just look at the way they handled CREM.
Last year the Laboratory had 18 security violations involving the sending of classified e-mails out on an open unclassified system. Sometimes humans make such mistakes. Two of those 18 were by Director Nanos who is not an ADC nor did he even bother to consult one. S-Division whitewashed these two security violations as well. "If you don't have integrity you have nothing."
To 4/22/2005 07:18:44 PM:
I know I'm being picky, but I think you should have said infractions. An infraction is a mistake while a violation is deliberate.
To: 4/22/2005 07:18:44 PM and 08:14:59 PM: Violation ... infractions ...
Does not matter if true and you can document it. Why don't you send it to POGO and let them put his head on a stake for us. Would save UC from having to move him off somewhere at high $. ...
Dear 4/22/2005 07:18:44:PM:
Thanks for your comment. I think the order is incident, compromise, and infraction (an infraction is a violation of extant rules either through negligence or a willful act. Either of the latter two, compromise or infraction, I believe could be deemed a violation. However, as I said, humans sometimes make human mistakes. I do not doubt that the two incidents probably fall within human error, as did the miscategorization of the DX ACREM. The two incidents were treated deemed incidents and are among the 18 on the list. It is possible that even though the recipients here thought the two e-mails contained classified information a subsequent at the lab and area office might have reached a different conclusion. However, it is always a good practice to consult an ADC in dealing with information where the classification is questionable.
POGO has one agenda, the complete shutdown of alll nuclear operations, both weapons and energy. Why would POGO take any action to help remove Nanos from Los Alamos. By his incompetence and abusive actions, he is primaily responsible for the dismantlement of Los Alamos. As a result, Nanos has become the poster child for the anti-nuclear cabal.
11:17 PM: Did you mean that Nanos was primally responsible or primarily responsible?
Both! Abusing, threatening, blustering with obscenities, retaliating, misjudgment, incompetence, surrounding himself with people even more incompetent, mismanagement, misappropriation, covering up, scapegoating, making questionable statements made under oath, etcetera, if there's a way to run an organizations into the rocks he seems to have a gift for finding it. I'll bet that's the primal and primary reason the real Navy never allowed him to command a real ship because, as this blog and our shared experience prove, real rocks lie out there in the dark. Nanos seems to have found all of them.
Too bad that the Navy never gave Nanos a ship. The Naval equivalent of fragging is pushing someone overboard.
Trouble is, Nanos knows how to swim.
And as the USS Los Alamos crashes into the rocks, President Dynes is asleep in the boiler room under a sign that says "Out to Lunch" and Captain Brooks is on the fantail trying to bag an albatross to wear around his neck. Admiral Foley sits regally in the head with a sign on the bulkhead saying "Preoccupied." Marquez is thinking about playing tiddly winks with the ship's belle. Cobb is swabbing the decks with lye to remove his fingerprints. A skull and crossbones flys from the mast, not a flag mind you but the careers of the skipper's victims. Yo ho ho and a gaggle of dumb. What a movie this would make!
But 10:36:09 AM, he's swimming in a sea of chum with hundreds of Carcharodon carcharias/blogus (Great Blogging Sharks) swiming around and it's a thousand miles to the nearest island.
Incredible, Los Alamos is headed by a guy with a restraining order filed against him.
...and he certifies a good part of our nation's nuclear stockpile!
I guess that's why he's certifiable.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?