|Note that "the Federalist Society [is] a highly subversive group of right-wing lawyers who are determined to elevate the powers of the executive branch above Congress and the Supreme Court," says Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D.,
former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Ronald Reagan Administration. Their hostility includes hatred of due process of law, including the right of a person to be informed of the charges made against the person.
When whistleblowers are fired from the government for doing their job, the public is harmed, not just the worker. Some function of the government that ought to do done, then is left undone. Coworkers become afraid to act in the subject matter re which they saw their colleague fired.
As Thomas M. Devine and Donald G. Aplin, "Whistleblower Protection—The Gap Between the Law and Reality," 31 Howard Law Journal (#2) 223-239 (1988), show, becoming a whistleblower can be the end to a government employee's career, family, health, and normal life circumstances. Government anti-whistleblower policy is to:
"Embarrassment and humiliation denote shame, disgrace, degradation, distress, anguish, etc. See Perkins v Ogilvie, 148 Ky. 309, 146 S.W.2d 735 (1912)," cited in Ky Com on Human Rights and Cooper v Fraser, 625 SW2d 852 (Ky, 1981). [See Concept Details]. It is firm government policy and practice to shame, disgrace, degrade, distress and otherwise abuse whistleblowers, and, as with the abused Mrs. Cooper, supervisor "had fired her for her own benefit"!!
And, "the threat of being fired is equal to the threat of most minor and some not so minor criminal sanctions," Herzbrun v Milwaukee County, 338 F Supp 736, 738 (ED Wis, 1972).
The case file is thousands of pages. Here are highlights. Essentially, I blew the whistle on law and regulatory violations. My allegations were upheld by an investigator. The agency retaliated, fired me without filing charges of any misconduct. No employee has ever failed to win his job back in such circumstances, as the advance notice law, 5 USC § 7513.(b) is so clear, notice must be in writing 30 days PRIOR to the ouster! Kenneth Starr aided and abetted the illegality. But he had a severe conflict of interest.
This issue involves getting deep into the subject, so please bear with me. Michigan was an abolitionist state, meaning anti-slavery. This is significant due to slavery's tobacco connection. Michigan in 1909 established by law a boycott of cigarettes, tobacco farmers' then newest product. The law is MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216. An area federal agency appointed the web writer in 1969 as a personnel official and in 1976 added the crime prevention function to my responsibilities. It soon became evident that the law was being widely defied. I blew the whistle. As Thomas M. Devine and Donald G. Aplin, "Whistleblower Protection—The Gap Between the Law and Reality," 31 Howard Law J (#2) 223-239 (1988), show, becoming a whistleblower can be end to a government employee's career, family, health, and normal life circumstances.
For background, note the overview of the tobacco lobby connection to Kenneth Starr and the Federalist Society. Further note the tobacco farmer connection to slavery. Tobacco farmers began the major use of slaves in the U.S. See Glenn Porter, ed., Encyclopedia of American Economic History, Vol II (NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1980), "Slavery," pp 552-561. It says "of the American slave population . . . most worked in tobacco," p 552. Tobacco farmers were family-destroyers in more ways than one.
Kenneth Starr, James Ryan, Roy C. Hayes, Jr., Maura Corrigan, Stephen Markman, and/or others in the Federalist Society, with its Confederate-type views, became involved in my case in this way. As part of my blowing the whistle, I (with my immeidate supervisor's support), reported the widespread violations to the regional Appellate Authority (USACARA). After investigation, it ruled in my favor, told the federal agency to come into compliance.
Instead, the agency fired me without 30 days notice, violating 5 USC § 7513.(b). This was unequal treament, disparate treatment, not done to others. It was done to intimidate coworkers from doing their job on the subject. I immediately sought review pursuant to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) system pursuant to 29 CFR § 1613.
The agency was / is afraid of EEOC's known integrity. An EEOC official, Administrative Judge Henry Perez, Jr., by letter notified the agency that he had observed the firing; and the agency knew that he had observed this without the agency having first issued me the prerequisite t 30 days notice, violating 5 USC § 7513.(b) 30 days advance notice.
Wherefore the agency decided to obstruct my obtaining review in the EEOC forum. The agency is in Michigan. The agency therefore unlawfully forced the case to be heard against my will, and in violation of 29 CFR § 1613.403, in the corrupt Chicago Cook County system, specifically, the federal "Merit Systems Protection Board," people who are so corrupt they could give lessons to Cook County judges! (The Chicago MSPB office has jurisdiction over Michigan federal employee cases, when the federal employees voluntarily seek such review; and that was the pretext).
I sued in federal court to get review, specifically, EEOC review, of my appeal of being fired without notice. No federal employee has ever lost a case in such a circumstance. And my case would be even easier to win, due to the Perez letter citing observing the firing.
However, the sad state of judicial institutions (in essence, "legalized bribery" and/or a racist, Confederate attitude among federal attorneys and judges), made me the one and only exception. To prevent my appeal being heard, they said I applied to disability retire myself! retroactively, years after the firing, long after the one-year statute of limitations, contrary to all medical writings!! And then they ignored it when my doctor wrote the court and said I did no such thing, I have no medical condition preventing me working!!
Others on "total disability" had to have significant medical data showing 100% inability to do the job! The civil service system provides no "partial disability" (1-99%). The rule is 100% disability necessary to qualify, anything less, application denied.)
However, "once bribed, always bribed" (meaning, no retraction even when caught) so I am on total disability at taxpayer expense! And my appeal of being fired illegally was never heard in the 29 CFR § 1613 system I want!! In addition, I sought review of the agency decision to even apply to force me onto disability. The agency refuses to allow that request for review to be heard either!
The corrupt reaction is easy to understand once one recognizes that tobacco is the gateway drug. What does that mean? That means it is the starter drug. What follows is in predictable sequence: alcoholism, drugs, then crime. So tobacco is the lucrative underpinning for judges to get bribes in the first place! Judges saw/see me as a threat to their bribes!
"For almost four hundred years, European and American physicians have observed the toxic effects of tobacco . . . . physicians have known for centuries that smokers were daily taking into their bodies large quantities of one of the most poisonous substances known to man." See Frank L. Wood, M.D., What You Should Know About Tobacco (Wichita, KS: The Wichita Publishing Co, 1944), p 67.
Here are some examples of what Dr. Wood means. Cigarettes are inherently dangerous. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress: a Report of the Surgeon General, Publication CDC 89-8411, Table 7, pp 86-87 (1989), lists examples of deleterious ingredients including but not limited to:
Nicotine is "a colorless, oily, water-soluble, highly toxic, liquid alkaloid, found in tobacco and valued as an insecticide," The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2d ed (unabridged), p 1298. The 1989 Surgeon General Report, supra, Table 6, p 83, lists nicotine as at this level: "1,000-3000 ug/cigarette." Smokers are not insects to be killed with insecticide, a substance tantamount to a rape drug it is so powerful in impacting behavior including leading to death.
"Nicotine is one of the most powerful of the 'nerve poisons' known. Its virulence is compared to that of prussic acid. . . . . It seems to destroy life not by attacking a few but all of the functions essential to it. . . . A significant indication of this is that there is no substance which can counteract its effects. . . . the use of tobacco in even the smallest amount impairs the functional action of the liver on the blood passing through it, and that the abnormal state of the blood thus caused will manifest itself by disturbance in the brain." "Thus the nerves are under the constant influence of the drug and much injury to the system results." Source: C. W. Lyman, 48 New York Medical Journal 262-265 (8 Sep 1888).
"Moreover, there is no question that arsenic . . . is definitely an active carcinogen on human tissue. . . . the arsenic content of American cigarettes has increased from two to six times in a period of 25 years. One popular brand contains from 41 to 52.5 micrograms of arsenic, of which one third remains in the butt, one third is in the ash, and one third goes into the smoke. Anout five micrograms of arsenic trioxide is inhaled from each cigarette. Three parts of arsenic trioxide per million is the maximum amount permitted in food." See Alton Ochsner, M.D., Smoking and Your Life (New York: Julian Messner Pub, 1954 rev 1964), p 15. Unfortunately, "most laymen . . . lack the scientific background to recognize the damage that can be done by what appears [to them] to be miniscule amounts of irritants," p 16. "Actually . . . the safety factor among the leading brands varies so little that offering it as the basis for smoking any cigarette is like offering a man the choice of committing suicide by jumping either from a 50- or 51-story building," p 16.
These toxic chemicals have an effect. Prof. W. E. Dixon (Cambridge University), The Tobacco Habit (1927) identified more than fifty diseases or symptoms in which tobacco was already then known to be a factor. This site has data from a 1925 medical book on the subject: Hoffman, Frederick, Third and Fourth Quarterly Report of the San Francisco Cancer Survey (Prudential Press, 1925).
A chart-form summary was published three years later by Drs. Herbert L. Lombard and Carl B. Doering, "Cancer Studies . . . Habits, Characteristics and Environment of Individuals With And Without Cancer," 198 New England Journal of Medicine (10) 481-487 (26 April 1928). The 1925 data showed already then existing data on premature deaths among smokers at a higher rate than among nonsmokers. Here are key words Drs. Lombard and Doering reprinted from the 1925 chart (Table 19, p 485):
"The use of tobacco has long been considered a factor in the incidence of cancer of the buccal cavity . . . Heavy smoking is more common in the cancer group than among the controls," Lombard & Doering, 198 N Eng J Med 485, 487, supra.
Pro-tobacco forces like to pretend that other factors, other variables, are responsible for cancer and all other tobacco effects, alcoholism, crime, suicide, etc. Doctors are, of course, skilled in assessing the merits, if any, of such "alternative cause" notions. Variables being alleged at that time, the 1920's, e.g., housing conditions, constipation, height, weight, salt, alcohol, laxative use, were ruled out. Of course, that does not deter the disinformation types. Count on them to invent new alleged causative factors!! or to pretend the alternative, that the causative process is unknown!! (Contradictions are a specialty of the disinformation lobby).
Due to such tobacco lobby disinformation, most smokers are still unaware of the hazard: "Most smokers do not view themselves at increased risk of heart disease or cancer." John P. Ayanian, M.D., M.P.P., Paul J. Cleary, Ph.D., "Perceived Risks of Heart Disease and Cancer Among Cigarette Smokers," 281 J Am Med Ass'n (11) 1019-1021 (17 March 1999). Wherefore it was my duty in crime prevention to blow the whistle on the massive violations of the law, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, harming and leading to the deaths of so mamy, especially minorities, often targeted for disproportionate cigarette advertising. Tobacco farmers were family destroyers, and had abused Aftrican Americans during slavery, and were in essence continuing to do so now. Can I overlook the law violations? No, I must blow the whistle.
Judicial notice of cigarettes' deleteriousness was taken as long ago as pursuant to an 1897 Tennessee law banning cigarettes, upheld in the case of Austin v State, 101 Tenn 563; 566-7; 48 SW 305, 306; 70 Am St Rep 703 (1898) affirmed 179 US 343 (1900). Indeed, even before 1897, aspects of the hazard had been shown in the medical profession, and it was so well documented before Tennessee banned cigarettes in 1897, that aspects of the hazard had already repeatedly received judicial notice. Examples:
* It is deleterious due to the fire hazard, Commonwealth v Thompson, 53 Mass 231 (1847).
The above judicial notice of the hazard occurred because the tobacco hazard, including the tobacco-cancer connection, was already known. It was already known in 1885, It is repeatedly cited in the book by Meta Lander, The Tobacco Problem, 6th ed. (Boston: Lee and Shepard Pub, 1885). Lander wrote "Surgeon-General-style," i.e., quoting what others say. Examples include the following:
"Professor Bouisson, of France: 'Tobacco . . . is the most common cause of cancer in the mouth.'
Lander included the then recent incident of General later President Ulysses Grant. He died of tobacco-caused cancer. His Dr. Douglas stated, "Smoking was the exciting cause of this cancer . . ." His Dr. Shrady said, "It is quite probable that the irritation of smoking was the actual cause of the cancer; or at least it is fair to presume that he would not have had the disease if his [smoking] had not been carried to excess," Lander, supra, pp 141-142.
MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216 (1909) seeks to prevent this widespread type of harm and death. Can I overlook the law violations? No, I must blow the whistle.
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., The Politics of Cancer (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1978), pp 160-161 gives a partial list of tobacco-caused cancer sites (esophagus, larynx, lip, lung, mouth, pancreas, pharynx, tongue, urinary bladder) and other linked injuries: aortic aneurism, coronary heart disease, chronic bronchitis emphysema, peptic ulcers, and stroke. Dr. Epstein concludes, "In view of the fact that tobacco smoke contains hundreds of identifiable chemical components, it is now surprising that smoking causes so few diseases." (Actually, 50 as cited by Prof. Dixon is not a "few.")
The case of Banzhaf v Federal Communications Commission, 132 US App DC 14, 29; 405 F2d 1082, 1097 (1968) cert den 396 US 842 (1969) upheld the concept of cigarettes' deleteriousness:
"The danger cigarettes . . . pose to health is, among others, a danger to life itself . . . a danger inherent in the normal use of the product, not one merely associated with its abuse or dependent on intervening fortuitous events. It threatens a substantial body of the population, not merely a peculiarly susceptible fringe group."
In fact, judicial notice of cigarettes' "inherent" deleteriousness had long before been taken, in the above-cited Tennessee case, Austin v State, 101 Tenn 563; 566-7; 48 SW 305, 306; 70 Am St Rep 703 (1898) affirmed 179 US 343 (1900). Tennessee was scared of cigarettes as they are a dangerous Confederate product. Tennessee's Supreme Court said in Austin:
"[C]igaretes . . . are . . . wholly noxious and delterious to health. Their use is always harmful; never beneficial. They possess no virtue, but are inherently bad, and bad only . . . widely condemned as pernicious altogether. Beyond question, their every tendency is toward the impairment of physical health and mental vigor. . . . Courts are authorized to take judicial cognizance of . . . those facts which, by human observation and experience, have become well and generally known to be true. . . . cigarettes are wholly noxious and deleterious and . . . an unmitigated evil."
The Michigan law banning cigarettes with deleterious ingredients, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, was passed soon thereafter, in 1909.
Due to cigarettes' inherently deleterious nature and ingredients, they, when lit, emit deleterious emissions. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW), Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, PHS Pub 1103, Table 4, p 60 (1964), lists examples of cigarettes' deleterious emissions compared to the chemicals' "speed limits" (set in the toxic chemical regulation 29 CFR § 1910.1000, available at your local library), including but not limited to:
Additional data of this type can be found in the book by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., The Politics of Cancer (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1978), p 154. Here is a word picture (using the example of carbon monoxide) of what this type data means:
| 42,000 ppm - cigarettes' carbon monoxide
It is because cigarettes' emissions vastly exceed the "speed limits" that they are dangerous and so fatal as to kill millions of people. If cigarettes' toxic chemicals were under the "speed limits," they'd be safe! Example: The "speed limit" for carbon monoxide is about 100, whereas it's doing 42,000.
"The smoker of cigarettes is constantly exposed to levels of carbon monoxide in the range of 500 to 1,500 parts per million when he inhales the cigarette smoke." G. H. Miller, Ph.D., "The Filter Cigarette Controversy," 72 J Indiana St Med Ass'n (12) 903, 904 (Dec 1979).
The hazard to smokers (need it be said?) arises as their exposure is far above these criteria. Here is another example, explaining why we see snoke clouds hanging in the air:
"[L]ittle mixing takes place, as can be seen by watching smoke plumes rise in still air. Even when the plume is disturbed, the visible core can be observed to maintain homogeneity over a distance of one to three meters . . . . the core with concentrations of tens to hundreds of parts per million of the powerful irritnats acrolein and formaldehyde can readily contact eyes or be breathed with only slight dilution. The irritant properties of these materials may be partly inferred by their occupational limits. These are 0.1 to 0.3 ppm for acrolein and 1 to 3 ppm for formaldehyde." Howard E. Ayer, M.S., David W. Yeager, B.S., "Irritants in Cigarette Smoke Plumes," 72 Am J Pub Health 1283 (Nov 1982).
Smokers' typical inability to comprehend such basic mathematical facts connotes acalculia, inability to do simple mathematical calculations of risk. For example, notice that cigarettes' carbon monoxide emission is at 42,000 ppm. But they are are not safe above about 50-200 ppm (the numbers vary over the years, by duration of exposure, etc.). Those numbers are always far under 42,000. Most smokers (generally speaking) even when told these numbers, do not typically respond to these simple mathematical facts by ceasing the activity (smoking) in a sufficiently timely manner to avoid widespread harm and deaths, e.g., from lung cancer, etc. Acalculia is thus evident early on in smokers. Wherefore smokers suffer disproportionately from additional mental disorders including Alzheimer's disease, with rates above the general population.
The Michigan law banning cigarettes with deleterious ingredients, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, is clearly a life-saver, intended to prevent cigarettes with dangerous ingredients!! Only safe cigarettes, if any, can legally be manufactured, given away, and sold in Michigan. Are you convinced? Or do you want to know more than this "tip of the iceberg" of cigarettes' deleteriousness?
"Native use of tobacco parallels that of other hallucinogenic substances . . . The amounts of harman and norharman in cigarette smoke are about 10-20 mcg. per cigarette. This is about 40 to 100 times greater than that found in the tobacco leaf, indicating that pyrosynthesis occurs in the leaves during the burning . . . . harmine in relatively small doses crosses the blood-brain barrier and causes changes in the neural transmission in the visual system." See Oscar Janiger, M.D., and Marlene Dobkin De Rios, M.D., "Nicotiana an Hallucinogen?," 30 Econ Bot 149-151 (April-June 1976).
For background, see E. A. Martell, "Tobacco Radioactivity and Cancer in Smokers," 63 American Scientist 404-412 (July-August 1975). "The remarkable concentrations of 210Pb on small Aitken particles, on tobacco trichomes, and in insoluble cigarette smoke particles dramatically illustrate . . . concentration and fractionation processes. Similarly remarkable concentration and fractionation processes are involved in the inhalation, deposition, retention, clearance, and accumulation of insoluble particles in the lung and other organs. . . . the particles are confined to less than a gram of lung tissue, in which the alpha disintegration rate is more than 1,000 times that of dissolved natural alpha activity. . . Giving rise to a substantial increase in the number of alpha-induced structural changes in chromosomes and thus in the tumor risk," p 411.
"Because 210Pb has a radioactive half-life of 22 years, the body burden of the radioactive 210 Pb and its radioactive daughter products — 210Bi (bismuth-210) and 210Po — can continue to build up throughout the period of smoking . . . In addition, insoluble dust- particle accumulations in the lung and lymph nodes may ulcerate into adjoining blood vessels and be carried elsewhere in via the blood circulation. Thus long-term exposure to insoluble particles of respirable size leads to their accumulation in the lung. Lymph nodes, liver, bone marrow, and elsewhere," p 404.
I too know Starr's propensity to disregard the truth, and to support, cover-up, aid and abet perjury and obstruction of justice. He was involved in litigation against me, punishing me (a Crime Prevention Officer) for being truthful in reporting illegal activity, involving an extortion attempt to extort from me a retraction of my anticipated testimony. My case was heard, over my objections, by adjudicators in Chicago.
As Starr's conduct violated federal and state law, I filed a complaint against him on the subject in January 1991. Investigation of the complaint is being obstructed. This is obstruction of justice. Starr wants to force others to testify, but he doesn't do so in my case pending against him for now over eight years.
Recently, I filed a petition to attempt to get an order to move the case forward in Washington, D.C. The text of that petition and copies of a couple papers from my voluminous case file are reproduced below.
Other Materials in Case File
While decision is pending on whether to even allow review on the merits to begin, the petitioner will continue to post additional materials from the case file, including issues on the merits, as able.
Your assistance is requested. Please write to the President asking him to order a genuine investigation, and when he verifies that no notice of charges was issued me (unlike what is provided to others accused of genuine wrongdoing), to reinstate me.
"Removal" is defined as "A disciplinary separation action, other than for inefficiency or unacceptable performance . . . where the employee is at fault," according to Federal Personnel Manual Supplement 296-33, Subchapter 35, Glossary, page 35-11, pursuant to pre-identified (30 days prior) written notice of charges of violating conduct rules or performance standards, citing the rules, qualifications requirements, and/or performance standards involved as allegedly having been flagrantly and willfully violated, incidents, dates, witness names, etc., and typically citing prior corrective action (warnings, unsatisfactory ratings, reprimands, suspensions, etc.) having failed to secure improvement in performance and/or conduct..
You can easily verify the lack of notice. Cite the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC § 552. Request a copy of the notice of charges (misconduct, malperformance, etc., warranting disciplinary removal) citing the rules, qualifications requirements, and/or performance standards involved, incidents, dates, witnesses, etc., all 30 days prior to ordering me off the premises. When you get a denial letter, or no response, you will have verified my claim. Of course, when there is no notice, legally the person is on the rolls. Analogy: when there is no divorce decree, there is no divorce, no matter how many years have transpired!