Did the ATF deprive Bruzzese of his property without due process?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED A tenured government employee’s occupation is considered their property which cannot be deprived without due process requiring a notice of charges, an explanation of supporting evidence, a reasonable opportunity to respond, a hearing which provides for self-defense and representation by legal counsel. Federal agencies are required to prove misconduct charges by a preponderance of evidence, and to not rely on ex-parte statements. The Questions Presented are: Did the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), a federal agency administered by the Department of Justice (DOJ), deprive Bruzzese of his property by administering an adverse employment action without due process? Will the Supreme Court of the United States compel ATF/DOJ to reverse the adverse employment action if it was administered in violation of due process? Should a Writ of Mandamus require the District Court for the Eastern District if New York to impanel a jury for trial of the legal issues or damages raised by the deprivation of property without due process? Does the ATF/DOJ failure to adhere to any of : the aspects of due process in administering the adverse employment action necessitate a per curiam decision in favor of Bruzzese? 1