Another Witness to
Starr's Problem With Truth

This is one of many documents in the case file of this U.S. federal government whistleblower fired for reporting employer law violations. For a quick case summary, click here, or for its safety law aspects, here, or for the case in environmental terms, here. For common law precedents, click here, for a history of and exposes of racism in the criminal justice system, click here.

This circumstance is now past two decades of seeking review to begin. When the U.S. federal government wants to prevent review of a law violation by itself, it can really stall. But re the average violator, it can crack down fast and hard. This paper is from the 18th year.

“Pontius Pilate of the Potomac”—is how Starr was described in a blistering denunciation by James Davidson, the editor of the newsletter Strategic Investment. “Starr will fade, but he will not be forgotten. Historians will certainly have something to say about him. When 'The Decline and Fall of the United States' is written, Starr will merit a chapter. He will be seen as a weak, temporizing man who lacked the force of character to confront a corrupt system.” [p 113].
Prior Special Prosecutors had “all understood, instinctively, that they were called upon to make some sacrifice for the republic and its citizens. Decorum demanded no less. Not Kenneth Starr.” [p 150].
“This was not a man who understands the nature of his duty.” [p 151].
“The bastard.” [p 174]. —Quotes are from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, The Secret Life of Bill Clinton: The Unreported Stories (Washingtton, D.C.: Regnery Pub, Inc., 1997).

According to The Macomb Daily, p 8A, 31 March 1999, another witness, Julie Hiatt Steele, has come forward against Kenneth W. Starr.

A Virginia woman, she is being called to testify in Starr's prosecution of Susan McDougal, that Starr prosecuted her for being truthful. Her anticipated testimony is another in a series of incidents alleging that Starr favors falsity vs truth, as an attorney, Mark Geragos, observes.

Pletten too knows Starr's propensity to disregard the truth, and to support, cover-up, aid and abet, extortion to try to force him to stop blowing the whistle, bribery, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc. 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 Pletten a retraction of his anticipated testimony. Pletten's case was "heard," over his objections, by employer-chosen "adjudicators" in Chicago.

Chicago is where the entire court system [Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois] was run in such an egregiously corrupt fashion as to constitute a criminal enterprise. References:
  • United States v Murphy, 768 F2d 1518, 1531 (CA 7, 1985) cert den 475 US 1012; 106 S Ct 1188; 89 L Ed 2d 304 (1986)
  • United States ex rel. Collins v Welborn, 868 F Supp 950, 990 (ND Ill, 1994)
  • United States v Maloney, 71 F3d 645 (CA7, 29 Nov 1995) cert den 519 US 927; 117 S Ct 295; 136 L Ed 2d 214 (15 Oct 1996),
  • Bracy v Gramley, 520 US 899; 117 S Ct 1793; 138 L Ed 2d 97 (9 June 1997).
    Is it hard to understand why I want EEOC review, not Chicago's?!
    Is it hard to see why the employer insists on obstructing EEOC review, to force me to Chicago MSPB!
  • Chicago "Adjudicators" ignore pertinent issues:
    Anti-Racism | Pro-Safety | Anti-Crime
    Pro-Pure Air | Anti-Drugs | Pro-Life

    Wherefore I want review in the legitimate forum, the EEOC's 29 CFR § 1614, forum, which considers ALL issues the plaintiff wants considered. This full, i.e., genuine, review is what Starr aided and abetted in preventing.

    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 Pletten's case pending against him for now over ten years.

    Five years ago now, Pletten 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 Pletten's voluminous case file are reproduced below.
    Office of Federal Operations
    P. O. Box 19848
    Washington, D.C. 20036

    Leroy J. Pletten,                              )
                        Appellant,                     )
              v.                                             )                                     Docket No. 01990657
    Kenneth W. Starr, et al.,                 )
              Agency/Respondents.           )


    The facts herein are undisputed. Appellant, pursuant to 29 CFR §§ 1613-1614, requested assignment of an EEO Counselor in 1991. Purpose: to process discrimination complaint against Kenneth W. Starr. Others receive EEO Counselors immediately upon request, pursuant to the 21 day time frame for Counselor to act. The agency's local EEO Manager, K. R. Adler, sought to comply with 29 CFR §§ 1613-1614 in this regard. Adler did settlement action: agreement to obtain the review process (counseling, investigation, hearing), starting with assignment of an EEO Counselor to review and report on the actions of Starr.

              However, due to obstruction of justice, this has not occurred.1 Respondents' named by Adler have procured, aided, and abetted, refusal to assign an EEO Counselor. This refusal has been ongoing for an unprecedented number of years, despite my follow-ups. Refusing me an EEO Counselor, notwithstanding the settlement to obtain one for me, is a new act/pattern of discrimination. Others are not denied EEO Counselors, but are instead assigned one immediately as above stated.

    WHEREFORE, please issue an enforcement order enforcing the settlement, directing that

    an EEO Counselor be assigned immediately and full processing (investigation and hearing) occur as done for others; and/or in the alternative;

    (2) render a verdict/finding that respondents are in default (as others would be so found) pursuant to their obstruction of, and egregious refusal to abide by, the 29 CFR §§ 1613 and 1614 time limits, and (a) grant "make whole" relief as undisputed, and (b) direct disciplinary action, including disbarment, against respondent and accessories retroactive to when same would have occurred but for the obstruction of justice shown on the record.

    /s/Leroy J. Pletten
    Leroy J. Pletten
    Personnel Office Crime Prevention Officer/Appellant
    (810) 739-8343
    1 They foresee that assigning a Counselor, i.e., obeying the 29 CFR 1613-1614 process of mandatory review, will lead to findings of misconduct by Starr, et al. The Counselor's Report and anticipated testimony will, they fear, foreseeably find that Starr violated the federal code of ethics; used his public office for his private gain; had roles conflicting with government assignments; procured, aided and abetted defiance of EEOC's prior orders on my behalf; made false and/or misleading statements and actions; used forged evidence; obstructed the police investigation confirming the latter; and obstructed compliance with federal and Michigan law in the underlying situation. Purpose: reprisal against crime prevention officer whistleblowing on officials' smuggling (gateway drug) contraband onto government premises. This was causing a hazard to fellow employees and appellant. Smugglers, aided and abetted by Starr, did retaliatory ouster from position as purportedly unqualified, after my having held CPO position for years with awards for excellent performance. Respondents fear that 29 CFR §§ 1613-1614 review will verify a pattern of unlawful acts, including his doing same to curry favor with anticipated clients, constituting unlawful use of Starr's public office for his private gain. Wherefore, respondents are obstructing the making of such findings, via obstructing and preventing the review process from beginning, via obstructing assignment of an EEO Counselor, despite the settlement to provide same as 29 CFR §§ 1613-1614 mandates.

    WARREN MICHIGAN 48397-5000


    AMSTA-CQ (690-700h) 6 Aug 91

    MEMORANDUM FOR Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance

    and Complaints Review Agency, ATTN: SFMR-RBE
    (Ms. Van Dyke), Room 222, 1941 Jefferson Davis
    Highway, Arlington, VA 22202-4508

    SUBJECT: EEO Complaint of Leroy J. Pletten and M. P. W. Stone, Secretary of the Army

    1. Reference SFMR-RBE letter, 11 Apr 91, received 15 Apr 91 and recent discussion between Mr. S. Kelley and Ms. E. Bacon, of the TACOM Legal Office.

    2. Mr. Pletten's 7 Jan 91 request for counseling relates to his complaint against the Honorable Kenneth W. Starr, Solicitor General. The position of the U. S. Army Military District of Washington was requested on behalf of Mr. Pletten on 15 Feb 91. To date there has been no response.

    Kenneth R. Adler
    Equal Employment Manager

    L. Pletten

    Office of Federal Operations
    P. O. Box 19848
    Washington, D.C. 20036

    Leroy J. Pletten,
              v.                                                                                  Docket No. 01990657

    Kenneth W. Starr, et al.,



    Petitioner Leroy J. Pletten, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that his allegations in his Petition for Enforcement of Settlement Agreement are true and correct; no answer to said Petition, served 15 Sep 1998, has been received; more than sixty days have transpired; and therefore he deems it undisputed and uncontested, hence, to be accepted pursuant to case law, e.g., Ceja v U.S., 710 F2d 812 (CA Fed, 1983).

    Leroy J. Pletten
    Leroy J. Pletten
    Personnel Office Crime Prevention Officer/Appellant
    (810) 739-8343


    On November 18, 1998, Leroy J. Pletten, whose identity I provided on the basis of his driver's license, appeared before me, and signed and acknowledged this document.

    Janice A. Olszewski
    Janice A. Olszewski
    Notary Public, Macomb County, MI
    My Commission expires: 11-23-2001

    Site URL Index

    Other Materials in Case File

    Appellant's 19 Nov 1976 Appointment
    as Crime Prevention Officer

    The 21 March 1983 Brief to OPM in Continued Opposition to April 1981 Agency Application, Retaliating Against Pletten's Whistleblowing.

    Note examples of more such appeals:
  • OPM 29 March 1983
  • OPM 27 July 1983
  • OPM 10 Oct 1983
  • OPM 25 Nov 1983
  • OPM 2 January 1985
  • OPM 10 May 1985
  • Certiorari Petition No. 89-7594
    To Get Review to Begin

    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 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 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 18 Aug 1999 Reply to
    Agency Opposition To Letting
    The Case Be Heard on Merits

    The 14 Oct 1999 Notice of Discovery of New Evidence, DOJ's Anti-Racketeering Lawsuit Against Tobacco Companies Including Starr's Client Brown & Williamson

    The 18 April 2002 Appeal to EEOC

    The 24 January 2003 Reopening Motions

    Related Websites

    Suppression of Dissent
    Abuse of Medical Process

    Analysis of Chicago Area Judges' Corruption

    Supportive Actions By Michigan's Governor
    Declaration of Emergency Caused By Smuggling I Reported
    Governor's Explanation of the Harm To The State
    Governor's Executive Order Forbidding Use

    A Website Promoting Justice For This Situation

    An Neutral Private Citizen's Analysis
    of Kenneth W. Starr and the Like

    The Confederate-Type Beliefs of The Federalist Society Of Which Starr And Others Obstructing My Getting Review, Are Members

    Starr's Service as Attorney for Tobacco Company in Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co v Rep. Henry A. Waxman, et al.

    Another Whistleblower Case:
    Occurring in Texas Mid 1999

    Atlanta Court Finds Obstruction Data Sep 1999

    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.

    The Parallel DOJ Racketeering Case Against Tobacco Companies
    Prior Advice to DOJ
    DoJ Lawsuit
    DoJ Appendix
    DoJ Press Release
    Law Writer Analysis
    Health Group Analysis

    Your assistance is requested. "[T]he 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). You are yourself endangered, when federal employees fear to protect you.

    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 federal employee's career, family, health, and normal life circumstances. Use of misconduct against federal employees is not confined to my situation. You are affected when we fearful to do our job on your behalf.

    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.

    The President's Address for Employee Issues
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
    % White House Office of Agency Liasion
    Old Executive Office Building, Room 6
    Washington DC 20502

    "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!

    For Those With Interest In Underlying Issue
    In Different Styles For Different Perspectives
    So As To Offer A Connection to the Reader
    My Cost Saving Suggestion Article
    The Worker Safety Issue
    Harm to Public in Abusing Whistleblowers
    An Environmental Context

    US Army Smoking Regulation: AR 600-63 (Army Health Promotion) Chapter 4.0: Controlling Smoking
    US Army Regulations
    Civilian Personnel Related AR's & DA Pamphlets
    Army Administrative Electronic Publications


    This Anti-Ken Starr site owned by Leroy J. Pletten.
    [ Previous 5 Sites | Previous | Next | Next 5 Sites | Random Site | List Sites ]


    Sign My Guestbook Guestbook by GuestWorld View My Guestbook

    Email@Crime Prevention Officer

    An Anti-Starr Private Citizen's Analysis of Kenneth W. Starr