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.
Anti-Racism |
Pro-Safety |
Anti-Crime
|
Pro-Pure Air |
Anti-Drugs |
Pro-Life
| |
|
*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 |
| 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):
| Chemical | ||
| 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.
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.
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!)
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.
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.
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.
DoJ Appendix DoJ Press Release |
| Appellant's 19 Nov 1976 Appointment |
| Case Overview |
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 |
To Get Review To begin |
To Agency Refusal to Allow Review on Merits |
|
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.
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.
"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!