Case File Materials re Kenneth W. Starr
9 December 1998

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

Leroy J. Pletten,
          v.                                                                                  Docket No. 01990657

Louis Caldera, Secretary of the
Army, and Kenneth W. Starr, et al.,                                      9 Dec 1998


          Petitioner Leroy J. Pletten hereby moves to strike the agency reply for the following reasons:

          1. It is untimely, not received until today, 9 December 1998. A request for default was long ago entered in November.

          2. It is not under oath so constitutes mere argument as distinct from evidence. Kathryn Buttrey and Myrna F. Powell have no first hand familiarity with the facts in the case file. Significantly, they avoid filing any first hand evidence denying the in-the-record data in the case file from the first hand witnesses of the time.

          3. It contradicts the actual evidence of record in the case file, specifically the direct statements of EEO Manager Kenneth R. Adler, a person (like me) with first-hand familiarity with the facts. As the case file data connotes, his intent in referring the matter to MDW was to avoid processing control by biased hostile persons such as Kathryn Buttrey under the thumb of local Warren agency officials.

          4. Buttrey alleges that she appointed an unnamed EEO Counselor.

          A. No EEO Counselor has contacted me. Clearly Buttrey is admitting obstructing the process of having MDW appoint a counselor as the settlement by Adler provided. Buttrey's pretense or innuendo that impartial review will occur (by someone under the thumb of local officials) is also a fraud. The mere fact that Buttrey cites no name nor address of an alleged counselor is significant. MDW counselors have names and addresses.

          B. The agency, in Docket 01.93.2879, committed a similar stunt, pretending that it would initiate investigation of an issue on which I sought review. Thus the agency fraudulently deceived/tricked Ronnie Blumenthal into canceling the case. The investigation the agency had alleged would occur, still has not begun. Without EEOC ordering review to occur, it did not occur, just as the agency then, as now, intends. Please do not be tricked again . Do not cancel the case this time. Order review.

          6. Buttrey and Powell allege (not under oath) that there is no case file. This is a knowingly false claim to discredit the material in the case file such as Adler's settlement to refer review to MDW to prevent such as them obstructing the review process. They also intend to discredit Adler's statement citing materials in the case file. Her allegedly appointing a counselor so suddenly confirms she has a case file.) Alternatively, if there is now suddenly no case file, theirs is an admission against interest of having destroyed it, inasmuch as until their sudden shocking claim, there has never been such a denial; and there was clearly a case file pursuant to the data cited by Kenneth R. Adler.

          7. The insincerity of Myrna F. Powell is clear from start to end. Up-front, she misspells my name. At the end, she misstates my address. Clearly she is insincere in pretending that precessing of any type will now suddenly occur after all these years without EEOC looking over their shoulder every step of the way. Until I filed the petition to EEOC, neither Powell nor Buttrey had made any effort to get me the MDW counseling that I was so long ago promised. They fear an EEOC order telling them to do what the settlement agreed to, starting with an MDW counselor; that is why they have these crocodile tears of theirs.

          8. Re the claim of an unnamed counselor having been appointed, the agency has a pattern of having refused me review previously, notwithstanding pretended assurances that review would start as promised. The word of agency officials without an order, is no good.

          Wherefore, for any or all the foregoing reasons, Petitioner moves that the agency reply be stricken and that processing and action be ordered as initially requested.

                                                                                 Leroy J. Pletten;
                                                                                Leroy J. Pletten

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 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 Sudddenly 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 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