Case File Materials re Kenneth W. Starr
17 April 1996

DISPOSITION FORM _____________________________________________________________________________ REFERENCE OR OFFICE SYMBOL| SUBJECT
K. Adler Memo       |Follow-Up on 1991 Request for EEO Counseling
   6 Aug 91         |Request re Complaint - Kenneth W. Starr _____________________________________________________________________________

TO CG, MDW              FROM Leroy J. Pletten       17 April 1996
Washington, D.C.        PCS - CPO

1. This again requests processing of my 1991 discrimination case. Your refusal to act in a timely manner is itself discriminatory as others receive an EEO counselor immediately. Enclosed is new evidence, Frank Rich's 4-10-96 column, p 13, Detroit Free Press. It corroborates the undisputed facts, e.g., that Starr used public office for private gain; sought roles conflicting with government assignments; procured, aids and abets obstructing EEOC orders in my favor (Feb 1982, Mar 1983, etc.); and obstructs justice and federal and Michigan law, for his personal gain.

2. The unlawful intent is to obstruct Michigan law against poisoning people. See People v Carmichael, 5 Mich 10; 71 Am Dec 769 (1858) and MCL 750.27, MSA 28.216 (bans deleterious/ adulterated cigarettes from being manufactured, given away, and sold). Starr's obstructing state law violates established legal concepts and societal values, pertinent terms of which are in standard law dictionaries, e.g., Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed. (St. Paul: West Publishing Co, 1990).

3. "Consent" requires the person being of legal age to contract, typically 18. It "supposes a physical power to act, a moral power of acting, and a serious, determined, and free use of these powers . . . unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake." See Black's Law Dict, supra, p 305. And "consent of victim" "is generally no defense to a crime." "Informed consent" means "A person's agreement to allow something to happen . . . based on a full disclosure of facts needed to make the decision intelligently; i.e., knowledge of risks involved, alternatives, etc. Informed consent is the name for a general principle of law that a physician has a duty to disclose . . . whatever grave risks of injury might be incurred." P 779.

4. It is deemed fraud, action to defraud, p 423, if one provides an inconsistent message, e.g., misrepresents fact, denies foreseeable harm, as so doing is deemed the opposite of "full disclosure." Doctors, unlike tobacco pushers whom Starr is aiding and abetting, do not vaguely say, 'go look it up at the medical library. I'll tell you nothing specific.' Indeed, tobacco sellers do not even say that much. Rather, there are repeated disputes of medical journal data, contradicting the hazard. Such misrepresentations are so far outside "informed consent" as to constitute "fraud," p 660. In short, smokers do not "consent."

5. The terms "accident," "accidental," "accidental death," and "accidental killing" mean that the consequence was not a "natural and probable" one, but rather due to a "sudden, unexpected, external force," with "a reasonable beliefthat no harm is possible," and occurring "upon the instant, rather than something which continues, progresses or develops." Pp 15-16. The term "natural and probable consequence" relates to events that "happen so frequently . . . that . . . they may be expected [intended] to happen again." P 1026. "A person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his voluntary acts." P 1185. This is especially true when there is voluntary formula changing (e.g., altering nicotine levels) and additives (e.g., coumarin). The term "malice" covers such acts, and "universal malice." "Universal malice" relates to action "to take life . . . without knowing or caring who may be the victim." Pp 956-957.

DA FORM 2496
CG, MDW                       -2-                   17 April 1996

6. Pursuant to the "Doctrine of Transferred Intent," p 1498, once a perpetrator does an initial wrongful act, even if somehow that victim is not harmed, but "another" is harmed, intent "is said to be transferred from one to the other and the [perpetrator] is liable to the other even though he did not intend it in the first instance." This concept covers, e.g., second-hand smoke.

7. Murder is "the unlawful killing of a human being . . . with malice aforethought . . . All murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of wilful, deliberate and premeditated killing . . . [is] murder of the first degree." P 1019. Cigarettes have poisons, e.g., acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzo(a)pyrene, cadmium, coumarin, crotonaldehyde, chromium, ethylcarbamate, formaldehyde, hydrazine, lead, nickel and radioactive polonium. They cause emissions above legal limits, e.g., acetaldehyde (3,200 ppm vs 200 ppm); acrolein (150 vs 0.5 ppm), ammonia (300 vs 150 ppm, carbon monoxide(42,000 vs 100 ppm), formaldehyde (30 vs 5 ppm), hydrogen cyanide (1,600 vs 10 ppm), hydrogen sulfide (40 vs 20 ppm), methyl chloride (1,200 vs 100 ppm), and nitrogen dioxide (250 vs 5 ppm). (See Surgeon General Reports, 1964, 1989).

8. Analyses of such chemicals led to 29 CFR 1910.1000 "speed limits" above which excess is foreseeably dangerous; the natural and probable synergistic consequence is tens of thousands of Michigan deaths, and 37,000,000 U.S. deaths. See Dept of HEW, Research on Smoking Behavior, Research Monograph 17, Pub ADM 78-581, Foreword, p v (Dec 1978). Such deaths are not "accidental" but "premeditated." "Premeditation" means "thought of beforehand for any length of time, however short." P 1180.

9. Michigan follows standard law principles to protect people from poison, e.g., deleterious and adulterated cigarettes. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld states' police power against cigarettes in Austin v State, 179 US 343 (1900). Tobacco products have no label citing effects. Such secrecy brings them within classic anti-poisoning case law, e.g., People v Carmichael, supra, which provides life in prison for providing a person a person, e.g., a mind-altering substance that impairs judgment. Even if there were consent (which there is not), criminal law bans deaths via such means. Starr is aiding and abetting the mass casualties in Michigan and nationwide, by obstructing a precedent of enforcement of the law re which I blew the whistle.

10. Adult smokers would typically not be smoking if they had not been illegally solicited as children. Michigan law tells Starr's clients, 'once you began the illegal process, addicting children, you can't reap the fruit of your crime. Otherwise you will continue selling to children, as your lawbreaking pays off once they become 18.' Michigan bans Starr's clients keeping the illegally obtained customers, just as it bans robbers keeping the illegally obtained loot.

11. Enforcement of the law would get cigarettes out of legitimate stores, malls, grocery stores, convenience stores, etc. Re any underground cigarettes, the federal anti-smuggling law 18 USC 2341-2346 makes the matter a federal felony. Smuggling corroborates intentional killings, not accidents. MCL 767.39, MSA 28.979, renders persons such as Starr principals (not accessories) in the crimes being committed.

12. Time limits have been grossly exceeded, constituting "flight" having "probative value to guilt," Wangerin v State, 73 Wis 2d 427; 243 NW2d 448, 453 (1976); U.S. v Crisp, 435 F2d 354 (CA 7, 1970). Please stop the obstruction of review, which will confirm that it is undisputed that Starr and accessories are guilty of crimes above stated and as detailed in the record, extant and to be developed. They are in default (as they would accuse me of if I were late), past 29 CFR 1613 time limits.

                                              /s/Leroy J. Pletten
                                              Leroy J. Pletten
                                              PCS - CPO

DA FORM 2496


The Detroit Free Press, Wednesday, 10 April 1996, page 13A
By Frank Rich
New York Times News Service

         For those rooting for the president to end up in the slammer, April 2 was the biggest Whitewater day yet. At the trial in Little Rock, Ark., convicted felon David Hale testified that Bill Clinton profited knowingly from an illegal loan.

         And if you turned on CNN that afternoon, there was Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, at the top of "Headline News," crowing about his case in front of the courthouse.

         But something was wrong with the picture. Starr wasn't in Little Rock--he was in New Orleans. And the case he talked about wasn't Whitewater, but the class-action suit against the tobacco industry.

         On the biggest day of the Whitewater trial, Starr was arguing for his client Brown & Williamson that nicotine isn't addictive and that cigarette manufacturers have no responsibility to the 400,000-plus Americans their products kill each year. So zealous was Starr's defense of tobacco that he robbed his supposed Whitewater triumph of lead status on "Headline News."

         Starr's seeming conflicts of interest threaten to invite their own independent counsel. Even a writer from the conservative magazine American Spectator, whose financial backers include another Starr client (the right-wing Bradley Foundation), last week called for Starr to drop his extra-Whitewater entanglements.

         Taxpayers, meanwhile, may wonder why they are pouring some $1 million a month into an investigation run by a man whose priorities seem to be elsewhere.

         It wasn't happenstance, though, that of all Starr's many clients, tobacco would be the one to upstage Whitewater so conspicuously. Tobacco actually is a bigger priority for him and his party than Whitewater, paying big bucks to Starr's law firm and the GOP alike.

         Last month brought reports that tobacco contributions to the Republican Party had increased by more than 400 percent in two years and that Haley Barbour, the party chairman, was lobbying against anti-tobacco legislation in two states.

         This month, Mother Jones magazine will take this story further, devoting an entire issue to the "comeback strategy" by which Big Tobacco hopes to recover from its recent setbacks. The strategy? Bob Dole.

         Mother Jones reports not merely that Dole is a longtime beneficiary of tobacco money, but that his campaign is a home away from home for past and present tobacco operatives. Scratch the resume of of an important Dole fund-raiser such as Thomas Collamore or a Dole national co-chair, Jeanie Austin, of the chairman of Lawyers for Dole, Roderick DeArment, or the GOP convention manager, Paul Manafort, and you will find a tie-in to either a major tobacco law firm or public relations outfit, a tobacco industry front organization such as the National Smokers Association, or Phillip Morris itself.

         Taking no chances, Big Tobacco also seems to be cozying up to Elizabeth Dole. Mother Jones reports that tobacco companies have raised their contributions to the American Red Cross, which she heads, to $265,000 in 1995--up from $231,000 in the previous five years combined. Like her husband, Elizabeth Dole has been a loyal friend of tobacco, refusing to ban smoking on airlines as secretary of Transportation in 1987.

         The money Big Tobacco is lavishing on its political friends could be money very well spent. Big Tobacco knows it can get a much better deal if it triumphs this fall. The Food and Drug Administration and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration--the two federal agencies central to the Clinton administration's tough anti-cigarette policy--would be as doomed as a mad cow under President Dole.

         That is why Jeffrey Klein, the editor of Mother Jones, labels this year's presidental race "The Tobacco Election." Should Big Tobacco sweep, not only will it have its run of congress and the White House, but it will have advanced its friend Kenneth Starr a big step closer to the Supreme Court.

Other Materials in Case File

Appellant's 19 Nov 1976 Appointment
as Crime Prevention Officer

The 7 Jan 1992 Attempt
To Get Review to Begin
The 3 Nov 1992 Attempt
To Get Review to Begin

The 28 May 1993 Attempt To Get Review to Begin
Citing Violation of Due Process: NO NOTICE OF CHARGES

The 19 Apr 1996 List Of Rules of Professional Practice
for Attorneys Being Violated And Attempting To Get
Review To Begin After Being Obstructed 1991-1996

The 6 March 1998 Correspondence
Citing Starr's Apparent Coverup
of Falsehood In Another Case and
My Attempting to Get Review
To Begin After Being Obstructed 1991-1998

The 25 August 1998 Correspondence Citing a
Published Analysis of Starr's Apparent Sexual Fantasies
and Again Attempting to Get Review to Begin After
Being Obstructed 1991-1998, Correspondence
That Combined With This Material Inspired the Agency
to Suddenly Fight Harder to Prevent Review
as It Clearly Must Be Striking Close to The Truth

The 15 Sep 1998 Petition for An EEOC Order Directing
Review Pursuant to the 1991 Agency Settlement To Do So

The 9 Dec 1998 Motion To Strike the
Untimely Agency Response Attempting to
Continue to Obstruct Review

The 20 April 1999 Brief On Merits Pursuant
To Agency Refusal to Allow Review on Merits

The Website Promoting Justice For This Situation

A Private Citizen's Analysis of Kenneth W. Starr

         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.


Email@Crime Victim