Racketeering Incidents

          Contraband was being smuggled onto the premises, the government building area where I worked. This contraband involves worker safety, drug smuggling and expanded drug abuse, additional crimes, racism due to different consequences imposed on minorities vs whites, injury to men and women differently, i.e., a multiplicy of effects.

Background Elaboration
Anti-Racism | Pro-Safety | Anti-Crime
Pro-Pure Air | Anti-Drugs | Pro-Life

As a Crime Prevention Officer and Personnel Specialist, I blew the whistle, with my supervisor Jeremiah Kator's support. I had a long record of perfect attendance and high quality performance, including awards and recognition. But this record did not suffice here, as higher level management wanted the smuggling to continue. They use criminal acts, called racketeering, defined by federal law 18 USC § 1961, to get rid of me.

A List of Some of the Incidents of Racketeering

*falsifying hiring documents of applicants with behavior dangerous to self, others, and property

*smuggling contraband cigarettes onto the premises and selling them in violation of Michigan law and agency regulation

*murder of coworkers via non-compliance with the Michigan law and federal law and regulations

*issuance of false memoranda purporting that the EEO system is available while refusing me access to same

*false claim in June 1979 grievance case that the rules were being complied with

*false numbers in safety reports grossly contrary to Surgeon General data (e.g., saying 4 where Surgeon General says 42,000)

*making claims of studies being done, when cited date was a weekend with the workforce gone

*extortion via denunication in local newspaper, with intent for extort change in anticipated testimony

*extortion via phony medical examination with intent to disregard results in my favor, and with intent to extort change in anticipated testimony

*false dating in decisions miscalculating 30 days

*making false claims to MSPB to evade right to review

*extortion re anticipated testimony, confessed to by Col. Benacquista

*embezzlement of pay to extort change in anticipated testimony

*false claim to OWCP of never having exposed me to anything, while firing me due to the exposure to the hazard

*May 1981 false claim by Emily Bacon of processing in an EEOC hearing, an event neither being arranged nor ever held

*obstruction of justice, via the May 1981 claim, thereby halting review such as otehrs receive

*backdating eight months of Standard Form 50 re LWOP

*embezzlement of pay as LWOP is specifically forbidden by the agency's own rule

*on Standard Form 50 LWOP, fabricating a return to duty date

*November 1981 fraudulent claim that the regulations were being complied with

*false November 1981 claim that a smoke-free job site cannot be provided

*November 1981 allegation that I would be allowed to reply, defend myself, while simulataneously refusing me the ability to do so, by refusing to provide access to the premises and specifics of charges and allegations, e.g., names, dates, places, events, witnesses, standards of performance, etc.

*contradictory allegations in the Nov 1981 paper, with both words for cause and one not for cause, with citing none

*January 1982 fraudulent claim that EEO processing would occur though refusing same

*embezzlement via refusal to do case processing with specified time frames

*false January 1982 claim of having received an OPM ADC decision

*false Hoover claim in transcript of union negotiability of the issue, whereas law, qualifications, job descriptions, notice rules, etc., are non-negotiable

*Bacon's denial of the hazard in transcript

*mail fraud claiming issue is merely a "reasonable" one -- accommodation, whereas that is an affirmative defense, moot in issues outside the legal concept of "employment" and definitely moot until after charges are filed; and irrelevant regardless, as the laws and safety rules are "absolute," defining reasonableness thus

*ex parte communciation with federal judges to secure a false claim of a self-filed disability application outside the statute of limitations, in a fabricated time frame, between October 1984 and September 1985

*bribery of federal judges to do the above, and to refuse to retract when the fabrication was called to their attention

*destroying evidence during case pendency

*false claim I filed no EEO case while also claiming that I filed a burdensome number

*contadictory claim that there is no hazard while firing me for reporting the hazard

*false claim that I first appealed to MSPB, whereas appeal to EEOC was first

*obstruction of justice, preventing review in the chosen EEOC forum

*obstruction of justice, not notifying me of the various forums options

*obstruction of justice, informing counselors to not record my issues

*September 1998 fraudulent claim that no case file in the Starr case exists

           How did all this racketeering crime come about? Answer: You hired me to enforce the law; I wanted to do my job; others didn't want the law enforced! So they retaliated.

Note for example that there are safety laws to protect workers on the job. Chemicals are forbidden on the job above certain "speed limits," officially called "threshold limit values" (TLV's). Here is how this relates to cigarettes and job safety.

          Cigarettes are inherently dangerous as they contain large quantities of toxic chemical emissions including carbon monoxide. 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. above the TLV's. 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 contrasted to the TLV's set in the toxic chemical regulation 29 CFR § 1910.1000, available at your local library):

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

          Due to cigarettes' toxic chemicals far exceeding the "Threshold Limit Values," deaths are "natural and probable consequences." The high number of deaths (over 25,000) is a "holocaust" according to the Royal Society of Physicians' 1971 criteria. Pursuant to standard lawbook definitions, nonsmokers' involuntary foreseeable deaths constitute murder.

As a Crime Prevention Officer, I observed that the "TLV's" were not enforced against cigarette emissions. Data was falsified, e.g., 'safety officers' writing 4 instead of 42,000.

"If you poison your boss a little bit each day it's called murder; if your boss [or smoker coworker] poisons you a little each day it's called a Threshold Limit Value. —James P. Keogh, M.D." cited by Prof. Robert N. Proctor, Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don't Know About Cancer (New York: Basic Books, 1995), p 153.

The TLV's are law. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 USC § 651 - § 678 forbids hazards. Implementing regulations such as 29 CFR § 1910.1000 provide specific examples of emissions hazards such as carbon monoxide (limit of 50 parts per million = the "TLV"). An employer has a duty to prevent and suppress hazardous conduct by employees. National Realty and Construction Co, Inc v Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 160 US App DC 133, 489 F2d 1257, 1266, n 36 (CADC, 1973).

          Compliance with 29 CFR § 1910.1000 is mandatory, not optional. Relative to smoking, an employer must comply with the "duty to prevent and suppress" a hazard such as carbon monoxide, since "the detrimental effects of cigarette smoking on health are beyond controversy." Larus and Brother Co v Federal Communications Commission, 447 F2d 876, (CA 4, 1971). I saw mass non-compliance.

          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 or she inhales cigarette smoke. See Gus H. Miller, Ph.D., "The filter cigarette controversy," 72 J Indiana St Med Assoc (#12) 903-905 (Dec 1979). This quantity exceeds the legal limit, hence, renders smoking illegal without further ado.

The Army had its own additional rule banning cigarette smoking, Army Regulation 1-8 issued as directed by 32 CFR § 203. This came about shortly after a nonsmoker employee who did not want to be another nonsmoker death (TVL'd to death) by cigarette emissions, had successfully sued, Shimp v New Jersey Bell Telephone Co, 145 NJ Super 516; 368 A2d 408 (1976). Here is the text of the injunction in the Shimp case.

          By law, employers must obey both the general words of the law, the "general duty clause," and the specific numerics. An employer who said, 'we'll obey the number, not the general rule' was found guilty of noncompliance when a worker at my jobsite was killed on the job as a result. That case title is 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). This occurred shortly after I was fired, as the employer knew it could kill with near total impunity (a small fine at most!)

Pursuant to a prior Supreme Court decision, Huron Cement Co v Detroit, 355 Mich 227; 93 NW2d 888 (1959) aff'd 362 US 440; 80 S Ct 813; 4 L Ed 2d 852 (25 April 1960), it was already established (in another toxics-type case), that people must obey all rules on a subject, not just one.

Thus "obey both" sets of rules concept was likewise upheld in Family Independence Agency v Melissa Kucharski, 468 Mich. 202; 661 NW2d 216; Lexis 939 (20 May 2003) (duty to obey both state law and court rule).

When safety whistleblowers are fired from the government for doing their job, truthfully reporting hazards or related activity, the public is harmed, not just the worker. Some function of the government that ought to be done, is left undone. Worse, many times, 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 federal employee's career, family, health, and normal life circumstances. Use of misconduct against federal employees is not confined to my situation.

Note that "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).

         Obstructing justice intimidates federal safety workers, and drug prevention workers, so they too know they can be fired and denied redress, thus destroying their career and family too.

This type pattern occurs as federal prosecutors have a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct. This includes the use of falsified evidence. This use is intentional as shown by their continued use of same despite the situation being brought to their attention.

          The agency fired me without 30 days notice, violating 5 USC § 7513.(b). This was unequal treatment, disparate treatment, not done to others. It was done to intimidate coworkers from doing their job. As the firing was prima facie unlawful, the above subsequent racketeering occurred, and is occurring, to prevent me getting review such as others receive, a criminal pattern that has been succeeding now since 1980, and shows no signs of abating. Wherefore your assistance is sought.

Above, mention was made of racketeering. The actions were part of the overall tobacco lobby pattern of racketeering, as the government itself would later show examples:

Overall Racketeering Pattern
DoJ Lawsuit
DoJ Appendix
DoJ Press Release

Other Materials in Case File

Appellant's 19 Nov 1976 Appointment
as Crime Prevention Officer

Case Overview

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 September 1998 Petition
To Get Review To begin

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

Related Websites

Analysis of Chicago Area Judges

The Website Promoting Justice For This Situation

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

         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

"The proof of the pattern or practice [of willingness to commit racketeering acts] supports an inference that any particular decision, during the period in which the policy was in force, was made in pursuit of that policy." Teamsters v U.S., 431 US 324, 362; 97 S Ct 1843, 1868; 52 L Ed 2d 396, 431 (1977).

Violations of criminal law can indeed result in damage to private citizens. Ware-Kramer Tobacco Co v American Tobacco Co, 180 F 160 (ED NC, 1910).

Litigants can show as part of the evidence in his/her own case, the guilt of others linked to the current defendant, in showing a pattern. Locker v American Tobacco Co, 194 F 232 (1912).

         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.

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!

Analysis of Chicago Area Judges where MSPB Is

A Recent Texas Firing Of A Whistleblower


Email@Crime Prevention Officer