|The 1979 article, "Canning Directions: How the Government Rids Itself of Troublemakers," gives the "recipe" and examples of how high integrity employees are harassed or gotten rid of:
"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"!!
(Bribery is used by tobacco pushers, see article, "Traders Offer Bribe to Stop Anti-Smoking Campaign." And see also the case of
See examples in various federal agencies, e.g., the FBI, cited by Peter Lance, 1000 Years for Revenge: International Terrorism and the FBI: The Untold Story (New York: Regan Books, August 2003). Note that so a civil servant can at last become safe and free to defend the public, the importance of reaching “the point in the Bureau [government agency] where [the employee] was considered KMA. 'It stands for Kiss My Ass,' said [employee] Predtechenkis candidly. . . . I could retire at the end of the day if I wanted to. It's a comforting feeling. . .” (p 172).
And, “To hear that from a decorated Bureau veteran is an indication of the atmosphere of fear that exists among FBI street agents today--the fear that expressing even modest disagreement with a supervisor, or staying loyal to an asset the way Nancy Floyd did, might result in an investigation with career-ending implications” (p 172). “Ironically, like Nancy Floyd, Smith found himself spending as much time battling his own agency and enduring the stress of office politics as he did chasing the bad guys” (p 214).
With whistleblowers under constant attack, the Army was impacted. For example, the Army enlisted "Ali Mohammed, the traitorous ex-Egyptian Army officer who had become a U.S. Army sergeant and served as an instructor in the Special Operations Warfare School at Fort Bragg while working for al Qaeda," p 373. "At the same time he was instructing Green Berets at Fort Bragg . . . he was commuting . . . to train the . . . . 'jihad army.' He used his knowledge of Special Forces operations techniques to train the top commanders of al Qaeda in Khost, Afghanistan, along with elite members of bin Laden's own bodyguard in Sudan. . . . 'The fact that Osama [bin Laden] was able to put an operative like him into a Special Forces training school should have been a screaming alert to the community,' said one intelligence operative," p 374. But with nobody daring to "blow the whistle," who'd do the "alert?"
The article, “C.I.A. Was Given Data on Hijacker Long Before 9/11,” by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau (New York Times, 24 Feb 2004), shows what happens due to fear-induced civil service paralysis of action: “American investigators were given [by German investigators] the first name and telephone number of one of the Sept. 11 hijackers two and a half years before the attacks on New York and Washington, but the United States appears to have failed to pursue the lead aggressively.
. . . The Germans considered the information on Mr. Shehhi particularly valuable, and the [9/11 investigating] commission is keenly interested in why it apparently did not lead to greater scrutiny of him.”
Note also the book by Prof. David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (Northampton, Mass.: Olive Branch Press, March 2004) and Interview, saying, e.g., “Members of the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies have taken oaths to not reveal things they’ve been told not to reveal . . . and if they violate this oath, repercussions may occur. You have a wife and children, and somebody says to you, “If you go public with that I cannot guarantee the safety of your family.” Would you go public with that? You have to choose between your family’s welfare and the welfare of the nation, and your story might not do that much good. You might just be denounced as a conspiracy kook. The press would ignore you, belittle you. People might look into your past and find that you had done some things you’re not so proud of. People would learn very quickly to keep their mouths shut.”
In fact, the threat of reprisal is real, common, throughout Federal Civil Service. See the MSPB Retaliation Rate Study (December 2000) www.mspb.gov/studies/00decnws.pdf, citing a seven - twelve per cent retaliation rate, meaning hundreds of thousands of incidents.
Intimidation of whistleblowers is a form of bulling. For background on bullying, see the anti-bullying site.
Safety laws are written in both general terms (words against jeopardizing safety) and in numeric terms, quantities of toxic chemicals shall not exceed X amount, in essence, a speed limit, a quantity limit. Employers must obey both the general words and the specific numerics.
International Union, UAW v General Dynamics Land Systems Division, 259 US App DC 369; 815 F2d 1570 (1987) cert den 484 US 976; 108 S Ct 485; 98 L Ed 2d 484 (1987), and state-law criminal prosecution, People v General Dynamics Land Sys Div, 175 Mich App 701; 438 NW2d 359 (1989) lv app den 435 Mich 860 (1990),
convicting the employer for the death. The State assessed a fine of $7,500.00!!
The case file is thousands of pages. Here are highlights. Essentially, with the support of my supervisor, Jeremiah Kator, I blew the whistle on law and regulatory violations, with respect to safety and health.
The Army is especially concerned. Soldiers (smoking outside at night) were easier targets for being shot by the Confederates during the Civil War, then a widely publicized fact, see Meta Lander, The Tobacco Problem, 6th ed. (Boston: Lee and Shepard Pub, 1885), p 289. Smoking soldiers were more susceptible to disease. Soon West Point banned smoking. By the time of the Spanish American War (1898), the Army refused to even enlist smokers. Smoking alters blood pressure, impairs blood flow, stresses the nervous system, and so impairs night vision, and deteriorates hand-eye coordination, as Secretary of the Army John O. Marsh, Jr., and General John A. Wickham, Jr., Chief of Staff long ago said. Another effect is an increased accident rate.
An area federal agency (TACOM) appointed the web writer in 1969 as a personnel official and in 1976 added the crime prevention function to my responsibilities. While I could not solve the Army smoking problem elsewhere, it soon became evident that the Michigan law, thus the common law "right to fresh and pure air," was being widely defied. Cigarettes were being smuggled, constituting contraband. I could at least protect the troops and colleagues at my own Michigan Army base. So I blew the whistle.
Problem: As Thomas M. Devine and Donald G. Aplin, "Whistleblower Protection—The Gap Between the Law and Reality," 31 Howard Law J 223 (1988), show, becoming a whistleblower can be end to a government employee's career, family, health, and normal life circumstances. As money can be made by allowing hazards (here, one endangering troops), there is a tendency to pressuring whistleblowers to back off.
1. ordering ouster without issuing a pre-decision advance notice at all;
Americans are being killed due to drugs, due to the inordinate demand. The demand arises primarily among smokers; nonsmokers do not use the starter drug, so rarely are the typical drug abuser. I want to do my job, deal with the massive violation of the cigarette law, thus save lives.
The case began unlawfully, with both the aforesaid law violations, and, in turn, extortion (demand that I cease and desist exposing the illegal aspects including the smuggling of the unlawful drug delivery agent). Under such circumstances, says the Supreme Court:
"We think that where a [smuggling] distribution system exists . . . which is illegal . . . where that illegality necessarily persists in part . . . subsequent [actions], otherwise valid, should be cancelled, along with the invalid arrangements, in order that the ground may be cleansed effectually from the vice of the former illegality."
"Equity has power to eradicate the evils of a condemned scheme by prohibition of the use of admittedly valid parts of an invalid whole. U.S. v Univis Lens Co, 316 US 241, 254; 62 S Ct 1088, 1095; Ethyl Gasoline Corp v U.S., 309 US 436, 461; 60 S Ct 618, 627. Cf. Standard Oil Co v U.S., 221 US 1, 78; 31 S Ct 502, 523; 34 LRA (NS) 834; Ann Cas1912D, 734; U.S. v Union Pac R Co, 226 US 61, 96; 33 S Ct 53, 61; U.S. v Union Pac R Co, , 226 US 470, 476, 477; 33 S Ct 162, 165 [(1913)]; Aiken v Wisconsin, 195 US 194, 205-206, 25 S Ct 3, 5-6; 49 L Ed 154, 159; U.S. v Bausch & Lomb Optical Co, 321 US 707, 724; 64 S Ct 805; 88 L Ed 1024 (SD NY, 10 April 1944).
|Instead of adhering to the rule of law, TACOM reroactively alleged the matter to be one of "job qualifications"! That violated additional law, e.g., federal law
5 USC § 552.(a)(l)(C) - (D). Said law requires advance publication of rules/qualifications. It further makes publication of rules/qualifications "jurisdictional (a mandatory condition precedent, sine qua non)," as all honest judges have ruled:
The tobacco qualification "requirement" does not exist, was purely ad hoc, invented solely for my case by TACOM, with corrupt prior MSPB and DOJ approval, ex parte arranged.
U.S. Attorney pattern of contempt for due process rights is clear, see NAACP v Levi, 418 F Supp 1109, 1114-1117 (D DC, 3 Sep 1976) (not investigating before acting).
I repeatedly return to duty per Bevan v N Y St T R System, 74 Misc 2d 443; 345 NYS 2d 921 (1973) (employee also falsely accused of not meeting non-existent qualification requirement!) Army had provided me a qualifications waiver-then ousted me re 'qualifications'!
|Ed. Note: The agency, the Army TACOM, put Pletten on enforced leave, and claimed that doing so outside the rule of law was somehow not an "adverse action."
Pletten appealed in the TACOM EEO forum and was refused access. Subsequent jurisdiction-less appeal (jurisdiction-less under 29 CFR 1613.403) to the MSPB resulted in this: "The MSPB [erroneously] ruled that it had no jurisdiction [not for the correct 29 CFR 1613.403 regulatory reason but on the pretext] that it had no jurisdiction over enforced leave cases because enforced leave was not an adverse action (this is no longer good law; after Valentine v. Department of Transportation, 31 M.S.P.B. 358 (1986), enforced leave is now an adverse action)," says Captain Scott D. Cooper, "Handling Tobacco-Related Discrimination Cases in the Federal Government," 118 Milit Law Rev 143, p 35 of 39, n 206 (Fall 1987).
The pro-drug MSPB and its accessories often use the whistleblowers' alleged "motive" to attack the whistleblower's job and carreer. But in law, one's motive prompting one to seek enforcement of legal duties or rights is immaterial. Vitagraph Co. of America v Swaab, 248 Pa 478, 94 A 126, Ann Cas 1916C, 311 (Pa., 1915).
Background on the Pletten case in due process context can be found at "The Human Rights of Due Process and Effective Remedy" (Janet Parker, OpEd News, 4 August 2010).
Kenneth Starr, James Ryan, Roy C. Hayes, Jr., Maura Corrigan, Stephen Markman, and/or others in the Federalist Society, with its reported anti-human-rights Confederate-type views, became involved in my case in this way. As part of his blowing the whistle, Pletten (a crime prevention officer and personnel specialist, with support by Jeremiah Kator, the immediate supervisor who continued giving Pletten good performance recognition and ratings unceasingly), reported the widespread violations to the regional Appellate Authority (USACARA). After investigation, it ruled in Pletten favor, told the federal agency (TACOM) to come into compliance.
Instead, the agency (TACOM) summarily fired Pletten. It did so without providing 30 days notice. This is a due process law to enable accused employees time to prepare a defense against any charge(s). TACOM's summarily ousting Pletten thus violated federal law 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. That violates efficiency of the federal service, vs promoting it. Pletten immediately sought review pursuant to the Inspector General system and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) system, the latter request made pursuant to 29 CFR § 1613.
The agency was 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 ("decision to terminate"); and the agency knew that he had observed this without the agency having first issued me the prerequisite 30 days notice, violating 5 USC § 7513.(b) whjich requires 30 days ADVANCE notice with opportunity to reply.
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 Pletten's will, and in violation of 29 CFR § 1613.403, in the corrupt Chicago Cook County system, specifically, the federal "Merit Systems Protection Board," with same type of "integrity" as such 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).
Pletten sued in federal court to get review, specifically, EEOC review, of his appeal of being fired without notice. No federal employee has ever lost a case in such a circumstance (except Pletten, at MSPB!). And Pletten's 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, as some writers such as Molly Ivins label it, "legalized bribery" and/or a racist, Confederate attitude among federal attorneys and judges), made Pletten 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 provided no "partial disability" (1-99%). The rule was 100% disability necessary to qualify, anything less, application denied.)
However, "once bribed, always bribed" (meaning, no retraction even when caught) so Pletten has been forced onto so-called "total disability" at taxpayer expense! That does not promote efficiency of the service, but is contrary to it (the whole idea of course, behind illegally getting rid of a whistleblower. And Pletten's appeal of being fired illegally was never heard in the 29 CFR § 1613 system I want!!)
As stated, Pletten's case was deemed by the agency as related to tobacco. "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."—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:
|acetaldehyde (1.4+ mg)||arsenic (500+ ng)||benzo(a)pyrene (.1+ ng)|
|cadmium (1,300+ ng)||crotonaldehyde (.2+ µg)||chromium (1,000+ ng)|
|ethylcarbamate 310+ ng)||formaldehyde (1.6+ µg)||hydrazine (14+ ng)|
|lead (8+ µg)||nickel (2,000+ ng)||radioactive polonium (.2+ Pci)|
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:
|acetaldehyde||3,200 ppm||200.0 ppm|
|acrolein||150 ppm||0.5 ppm|
|ammonia||300 ppm||150.0 ppm|
|carbon monoxide||42,000 ppm||100.0 ppm|
|formaldehyde||30 ppm||5.0 ppm|
|hydrogen cyanide||1,600 ppm||10.0 ppm|
|hydrogen sulfide||40 ppm||20.0 ppm|
|methyl chloride||1,200 ppm||100.0 ppm|
|nitrogen dioxide||250 ppm||5.0 ppm|
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
| 32,000 For perspective, police stop speeders going 60 in a 50 mph zone.
| Tobacco far exceeds the "speed limits." Tobacco kills precisely
| because its toxic chemicals are above the safe levels.
| 12,000 ppm - cars' limit "Cigarette Makers Get Away With Murder,"
| (40 CFR § 85.2203-81) says Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.,
| in The Detroit News, p 4B (3-14-93). The
| above "speed limit" numbers show why.
| 2,000 (Not to scale)
| 50 - legal amount indoors (29 CFR § 1910.1000)
| 9 - legal amount outdoors
| 0 - amount cigarette pushers allow from their personal furnaces
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 50, whereas it's doing 42,000. Enforcing safety rules promotes efficiency of the service, indeed, the well-being of society at large. Firing people who want to do their job, violates efficiency.
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. Naturally, I blew the whistle, citing federal rules of the time.
|Judicial notice of cigarettes' deleteriousness was taken as long ago as 1897 pursuant to a Tennessee law banning cigarettes. The law, when challenged by the tobacco lobby, was upheld in 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 so well documented, that aspects of the hazard had already received judicial notice. Examples:
* It is deleterious due to the fire hazard, Commonwealth v Thompson, 53 Mass 231 (1847).
Note the Pentagon-drugs connection to the illegal decision to terminate Pletten without advance notice, and to refuse him the review rights others are allowed to exercise.
"Clean indoor air laws are easily implemented, are well accepted by the public, reduce nonsmoker exposure to secondhand smoke, and contribute to a reduction in overall cigarette consumption. There are currently thousands of clean indoor air laws throughout the Unites States, and the majority of Americans live in areas where smoking is completely prohibited in workplaces, restaurants, or bars. The vast majority of scientific evidence indicates that there is no negative economic impact of clean indoor air policies, with many studies finding that there may be some positive effects on local businesses. This is despite the fact that tobacco industry-sponsored research has attempted to create fears to the contrary."Their findings refute the knowingly false claims to the contrary, by Department of the Army lawyers, and by the corrupted Merit Systems Protection Board adjudicators and federal judges such as Anna Diggs Taylor.
|Pletten's Cost Saving Suggestion Article
The Worker Safety Issue
"Federal employees too scared to report threats" (Macomb Daily, 17 Jan 2002)
"When Workers Die: California Leads in Making Employer Pay for Job Deaths," by David Barstow, New York Times (23 December 2003)
Seeds of Fire: China and the Story Behind the Attack on America
"'State secrets privilege' blocks fired translator from suing FBI" (23 November 2006) "Instead of protecting and standing up for whistle-blowers, this is just giving the complete green light to retaliate," says Edmonds, who lost her appeal.
Marcus Baram, "Big Oil Fought Off New Safety Rules Before Rig Explosion" (Huffington Post, 27 April 2010) ("whistleblowers working on [off-shore oil] rigs . . . complain about the work conditions and the environmental damage caused by such operations," to no avail, the deaths occur, and major environmental damage)
Jason Leopold, "Whistleblower: BP Risks More Massive Catastrophes in Gulf" (Friday, 30 April 2010) ("A former contractor who worked for BP claims the oil conglomerate broke federal laws and violated its own internal procedures by failing to maintain crucial safety and engineering documents related to one of the firms other deepwater production projects in the Gulf of Mexico.")
Other Materials in Case File
Weaver says that most of the people who contact him are so determined, they go ahead with their disclosures anyway. "I see what the result is," he sighs. "It's destruction from one end of their lives to the other."
Government Knowingly Files False Charges!
Appellant's 19 Nov 1976 Appointment
The retaliation took the form of multiple violations, including but not limited to:
(ignored by MSPB due to its firm, intractable, permanent, determined, irrevocable hatred of whistleblowers protecting the American people from anything, on any subject, including but not limited to drugs, the drug money trail linked to terrorism, etc. Long-term government policy and practice, as upheld by MSPB (and the federal courts), is to “go well beyond merely defeating a whistle blower . . . prove to others that no one is safe . . . make the most outrageous charges possible. . . . for purposes of teaching others a lesson, the more obvious the inconsistency [with work record (and law)] the better . . . .”—Thomas M. Devine and Donald G. Aplin, “Whistleblower Protection—Gap Between Law and Reality,” 31 Howard Law J (#2) 223, 226 (1988)).
The foregoing material parallels other Briefs in the series, e.g., 1 June 1982, 22 July 1982, 25 August 1982, 3 September 1982, 21 September 1982, and continuing into the 1990's and into 2004.
Briefs appealing likewise to OPM include but are not limited to those of 21 March 1983, 27 July 1983, 25 Nov 1983, and 2 Jan 1985.
Citing Violation of Due Process: NO NOTICE OF CHARGES
Being Obstructed 1991-1996: Citing Legal Principles With
Respect To Some of The Crimes Being Aided and Abetted
for Attorneys Being Violated And Attempting To Get
Review To Begin After Being Obstructed 1991-1996
Citing Starr's Apparent Coverup
of Falsehood In Another Case and
My Attempting to Get Review
To Begin After Being Obstructed 1991-1998
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 Sudddenly Fight Harder to Prevent Review
as It Clearly Must Be Striking Close to The Truth
To Get Review To begin
To Agency Refusal to Allow Review on Merits
"The Human Rights of Due Process and Effective Remedy"
(OpEd News, 4 August 2010)
The government establishes a duty to investigate abuses against whistleblowers, see 5 USC § 1214. For background on the merit principles of the federal civil service and the public health and safety, and the “broken covenant” of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978, see www.broken-covenant.org. That website described the broken covenant, broken promise of protection for whistleblowers, thus the American people, in eye-glazing detail. Americans are harmed, even killed, by the fear to blow the whistle, that the rampant retaliation causes, and intends to cause.
Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower, Subject: Fraud Study Says Whistleblowers Are The Most Common Means Of Identifying Fraud, But This Comes At A High Personal Cost When Whistleblower Anonymity Is Not Maintained" (February 2007)
http://www.humanities.uci.edu/history/faculty/Prof. Jonathan Wiener (History, Univ of California, Irvine, "Big Tobacco & The Historians: A Tale of Seduction and Intimidation," The Nation (15 March 2010) (on intimidating professors who testify on the tobacco holocaust, and financial support of those who aid and abet Big Tobacco)
Charles Peters and Taylor Branch, Blowing the Whistle: Dissent in the Public Interest (New York: Praeger, 1972) (Summary; site has other unrelated data as well)
Daniel Schulman, "Office of Special Counsel's War On Whistleblowers" (24 April 2007): "It's come to the point where some advocates now counsel federal employees against coming forward, period. "When people call me and ask about blowing the whistle, I always tell them, 'Don't do it, because your life will be destroyed,'" says William Weaver, a professor of political science at the University of Texas-El Paso and a senior adviser to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. "You'll lose your career; you're probably going to lose your family if you have one; you're probably going to lose all your friends because they're associated through work; you'll wind up squandering your life savings on attorneys; and you'll come out the other end of this process working at McDonald's."
"Whistleblowers are never vindicated," says Andrew M. Greeley, The Priestly Sins (New York, T. Doherty Associates, 2004), Chap. 1, p 23.
Attacks on whistleblowers are so common, they are the subject of movies, e.g.,
In this respect, the judges who have "gutted the law" due to their hatred of whistleblowers are like judges in the Nazi era. Then too judges went outside the law to spew their hatred of Jews. “Judges and [lawyers] were so eager to purge the institutions and the country of Jewish influence that they, beginning already in the first few months of Nazi governance, often outran the legal mandates that the regime promulgated. In October 1933, one Berlin court upheld the dismissal of a Jew from administering an estate, ruling that the people's pervasive hatred of Jews 'made it seem inadvisable to retain a Jew in office, even in the absence of a special law to this effect.' Earlier that year, in July, another Berlin court provided a more sweeping justification for judges taking such initiative in the battle against Jewry. According to Die Juristische Wochenschrift, the most important German legal periodical, the court, writing with obvious approval, pointed out 'that a revolutionary legislature [the Nazis had been in office but six months] naturally leaves loopholes which ought to be filled by the Court in applying the principles of the National Socialist Weltanschauung.” See Prof. Daniel J. Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996), p 97.
“The German judiciary—almost all of whom had taken the bench during Weimar and therefore were not, at least formally, not 'Nazi judges'—was composed of such ardent racial antisemites that leading Nazis (bound to the belief that the eliminationist program should be legally governed) chastised judges for having violated the law in their rampant eliminationist ardor. Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick similarly tried to rein in all those under his jurisdiction, including many holdovers from Weimar, from extending the eliminationist measures beyond the laws that the regime had made. The judiciary's extensive contribution to the persecution of the Jews during the Nazi period reveals its members to have been zealous implementers and initiators of eliminationist measures. The judges composed a group that was obviously bristling with anti-Jewish hatred during Weimar, and then, when Hitler took power, was [felt] freed to act upon these beliefs.” See Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners, supra, p 97. Here too, officials have to object to the judiciary's spewing hatred apart from the rule of law.
Diane Farsetta, "War vs. Democracy: Untold Stories from the Lynch / Tillman Hearing" (PR Watch.org, 11 May 2007) (on military falsifying information including witness statements)
"Dispute over treatment of heart patients derails career"
"Violations of medical ethics by our military" by Howard Brody (Galveston County Daily News, 22 May 2007) ("It is a clear-cut violation of international medical ethics to force-feed hunger-striking prisoners. The American Medical Association is a signatory to the world codes of medical ethics that condemn this practice. It is also a gross violation of international medical ethics for physicians to participate in or observe torture or degrading treatment of prisoners and not report it to authorities.") Almost nobody dares "blow the whistle," lest they be themselves attacked.
Resultant Injury to Victims
of Kenneth W. Starr and the Like
Weaver says that most of the people who contact him are so determined, they go ahead with their disclosures anyway. "I see what the result is," he sighs. "It's destruction from one end of their lives to the other."
Government Knowingly Files False Charges!
While decision on the Pletten case is pending on whether to even ever 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. The government's hostility and pattern of misconduct, delay, falsification, repirsal, ostracism, abuse of the system, parallels that of other segregationists, those who opposed desegregating the University of Mississippi. For background, see Univ. of Mississippi Prof. Russell H. Barrett, Integration at Ole Miss (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1965).
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.
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
% White House Office of Agency Liasion
Old Executive Office Building, Room 6
Washington DC 20502
Sample Request for Investigation for Readers to Send
The Address of the Secretary of the Army
Department of the Army
Washington DC 20310-1500
The Address of the Pertinent General
U.S. Army Materiel Command
5001 Eisenhower Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22333-0001
"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 (typically 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!
a. When an agency or EEOC has issued inadequate notice of rights to an employee, the error must be corrected regardless of how long (years or decades) the stalling has occurred b. That any employee filing(s) prior to receipt of correct rights, supra, must be deemed void. c. such new law must be retroactive to 1978, the year of the so-called Civil Service Reform Act. Reason: ALL reform laws have been adjudicated full of loopholes. Each new law has caused new victims, as employees emboldened to blow the whistle have been declared by MSPB, OSC, and Federal Circuit, as 'not covered.' Now we are gunshy, and fear whatever new law is passed, we'll be the one 'not covered.' That is a risk not worth taking. So any new law must be retroactive, must remedy all those past victims of the 'not covered' employees, lest the process of being 'not covered' recur indefinitely to the detriment of the public interest. d. the same right to whistleblowers that accused criminals get, a 'public defender' office -- an office assigned to represent whistleblowers automatically on request. That would be "equal protection under the law," the Constitution, as right now, ANY boss/manager, no matter how corrupt/liar, is automatically represented, at no charge, by his/her agency legal office all the way to the Supreme Court! Whistleblowers need equal rights, "equal protection of the law," automatic full representation, at no charge. e. requiring a mandatory STAY of pay cut-off until AFTER ALL review on merits is completed. The idea of being pay-less for years is an ultra-deterrent to whistleblowing, and costs lives as employees fear to blow the whistle, as cannot afford being pay-less for years. f. Provide for mandatory jury trials in all whistleblower cases. g. That awards must not only be for back pay, but also under the Anti-Racketeer Act, 18 USC 1961 et seq. (RICO), whenever the agency uses false statements in the retaliation process, by deeming such falsifications as mail fraud under RICO. h. That back pay awards MUST be recovered from the management officials responsible for the wrongful discipline. i. That US Attorneys MUST criminally prosecute in all situations when whistleblower cites extortion, falsification, bribery, mail fraud, or other crimes by management. j. Mandatory disbarment for agency lawyers defending retaliation. This is needed to force them to do their duty, enforce the rule of law impartially, follow the code of ethics to represent their client the agency as distinct from rule-defying managers and supervisors, thus penalize their current knee-jerk supporting ANYTHING some individual supervisor or manager wants no matter how corrupt, retaliatory, or illegal. k. Defining agency retaliators as tortfeasors so as to enforce the pertinent legal precedent concept as follows: “A tortfeasor has a duty to assist his victim. The initial injury creates a duty of aid and the breach of the duty is an independent tort. See Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 322, Comment c (1965).” Taylor v Meirick, 712 F2d 1112, 1117 (CA 7, 1983).