Case File Materials re Kenneth W. Starr
19 April 1996

DISPOSITION FORM _____________________________________________________________________________ REFERENCE OR OFFICE SYMBOL   | SUBJECT
Exec Order 12674       | Starr's Conflict of Interest/
K. Adler Memo 6 Aug 91 | Violations of Code of Ethics As Shown
                       | By His Pro-Tobacco Lying           _____________________________________________________________________________
TO CG, MDW               FROM Leroy J. Pletten    19 April 96
Washington, DC                PCS - CPO

1. Please expedite review. Frank Rich's 4-10-96 column, p 13, Detroit Free Press, shows Kenneth W. Starr's propensity to lie in court for tobacco, as he did in my case: "Starr was arguing [4-2-96] 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." B&W has a record of putting coumarin, for rat poison, in tobacco; Starr's accomplice Thomas Bezanson seeks to obstruct revealing that fact so the "natural and probable consequence," vast numbers of deaths, can continue.

2. Starr's arguing for that client against nicotine as addictive contradicts medical fact, the tobacco lobby position in the Sunday-closing law era that it is a drug, and his client Army's position that "Nicotine is a physiologically and psychologically addictive drug" and "There is no safe level of tobacco use." -- Army Pamphlet 600-63-7, Fit to Win, ANTITOBACCO USE, p 14 (1987).

3. Starr defended client TACOM's position that it was because its officials were tobacco addicts dangerous to self and others (including me) that they were personally unable to ban smoking. He aided and abetted Col. J. Benacquista's extortion (see deposition confession), and defended client TACOM's position contrary to regulations and what doctors, its own legal office, USACARA, and EEOC said, that sane people, non-addicts, the agency and TACOM all have authority/ability to cease permitting (ban) smoking. In fact TACOM did so in 1993, shortly after Starr had lied to the Supreme Court, saying it couldn't be done!!

4. The motive for Starr's misconduct obstructing me getting EEO review in defiance of EEOC's repeated orders has now surfaced; using public office for private gain contrary to EO 12674, he is a tobacco lobbyist. That is why he obstructs justice and enforcement of the rules/laws I have cited. This explains his aiding and abetting subordinates including Detroit U.S. Attorney personnel in bribing judges including Jones, Ryan and Celebrezze to fabricate that I filed a "disability retirement application" between October "1984 [and] "September 1985" and in obstructing the police investigation of the bribery/said false allegation.

5. Starr's behavior pattern violates Rules of Professional Conduct, e.g., 1.2 (not to aid and abet client crimes, re TACOM, extortion, document falsification, bribery of judges, etc., and re B&W, foreseeable killings); 1.5 (excessive fees, here, at the bribe level in exchange for his aid in obstructing Michigan law and thereby aid in the killing of vast numbers of our people); 1.8 and 1.9 (conflict of interest between clients and former clients, e.g., between Army, nicotine is addictive, and B&W, it is not); 1.11 (conflict between successive government and private employment); 3.4 (ban on unlawful obstruction of evidence, here, e.g., the entire EEOC review process I had requested); 3.7 (making himself foreseeably a witness) 3.8 (violation of prosecutor duty to not make false claims); 4.1 (ban on untruthful statements); 5.1 (failure as a supervisory attorney to control subordinates, preventing denial of personal responsibility); 8.3 (failure to report the attorney misconduct evident herein); and 8.4 (e.g., violating the rules and obstructing justice). Wherefore please expedite review.

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

DA FORM 2496


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 17 Apr 1996 Attempt To Get Review to Begin After
Being Obstructed 1991-1996: Citing Legal Principles With
Respect To Some of The Crimes Being Aided and Abetted

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