TACOM's Continuing Hostile Work Environment:
Another Victim: Iraq War Veteran James McLelvey

This news article also appeared nationwide in, e.g., Army Times, http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/10/ap_army_suit_bomb_102409/.

Typically, agency offenders and their U.S. Attorney aiders and abettors (a) send the bill for their "services" to the taxpayers rather than having to hire an attorney at their own expense as per private sector practice, (b) send the bill for jury awards to the taxpayers, (c) refuse to in turn bill the individual offenders, bigots, perpetrators, (d) refuse to discipline them to prevent future incidents, (e) appeal to pro-discrimination judges to overturn jury verdicts of jurors who heard the entire case, in short (f) laugh at the victims and taxpayers. To expose this, Mr. Pletten wrote the following "letter to editor."

Letter: 7 November 2009, p 6A

See also subsequent Letter to Editor, 16 December 2011, and subsequent decision, McKelvey v Army, 450 Fed.Appx. 532, 2011 WL 6183516 (C.A.6 (Mich.)), 25 A.D. Cases 939, 44 NDLR P 104 (14 December 2011).

Who pays when government supervisors and managers commit these violations? YOU do, you, the public. The Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick precedent in Detroit, of making a retaliator-against-whistleblower pay a mere 12% of the verdict, is rarely if ever followed by the federal government. Instead, federal officials who abuse peoples' rights, just laugh, forward the entire bill, all 100%, to YOU! the public!

Had TACOM's hostile work environment been controlled in the past, and corrective action taken pursuant to whistleblowing decades ago, starting in 1979-1980, this situation could have been prevented. TACOM, for example, had dnounced Pletten, as the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), in Docket 01800273, summarized the issue, "in an agency's publication derogatory references were made to his physical handicap." TACOM refused to allow review, even after the EEOC expressly directed review. TACOM's getting away with this abuse, with U.S. Attorneys' gloating approval, emboldened TACOM to in turn, e.g., attack and ridicule Sgt. McKelvey.

After TACOM retaliated so hostilely against whistleblowing on TACOM's safety violations, and got away with it re said 1979-1980 whistleblowing, at least three additional known bad results occurred:

  • 1. one known widely reported death of a worker there at the Army base due to the extreme hazard in violation of federal and state laws, that led to three lawsuits, one federal, two in state court, 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), and state-law criminal prosecution, People v General Dynamics Land Sys Div, 175 Mich App 701; 438 NW2d 359 (1989) lv app den 435 Mich 860 (1990), and the estate's lawsuit. Killing people, yes, that's one result of ousting a pro-safety, anti-drug, anti-terrorism whistleblower.

  • 2. harassment of a Jewish employee, David Tenenbaum, at the Army base. He was working for armor for the troops in Iraq. That would sure be a great reasonto attack him, TACOM decided. So TACOM Army lied, accused him of being a spy, put him through hell. He sued. TACOM and the local U.S. Attorney aiding and abetting TACOM's lying in court, so beat him in court! Armorless troops in Iraq continued unnecessarily dying. But fortunately for David Tenebaum, after some years, pursuant to intervention by the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, the Inspector General (which normally refuses to aid whistleblowers) did agree to belatedly investigate, having delayed until long after the incidents, and the federal district court order against Tenenbaum pursuant to the TACOM (representated by the taxpayers' U.S. Attorney Office) misrepresentations to the court. The result: David Tenenbaum was belatedly exonerated. (That of course did not help any of the needlessly killed troops.) David Tenenbaum is now re-suing. The U.S. Attorney continues to aid and abet TACOM despite these killer tactics by TACOM.

    TACOM treated McKelvey and Tenenbaum kindly compared to what it did to Pletten. For background, see, e.g.,

  • http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2004/11/23/287493.html

  • http://antisemitisms.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html

  • http://www.zoominfo.com/people/PersonDetailLimited.aspx?PersonID=4102693&lastName=Tenenbaum&firstName=David&id=4102693&searchSource=page&page=2

  • http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-23-2004/0002499866&EDATE=

  • http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=TACOM+%2B+Jewish+%2B+spy+%2B+lawsuit+%2B+Morganroth&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

  • 3. The above-cited McKelvey case -- combat vet injured in Iraq. He sued, won the jury verdict as shown by the 25 October 2009 newspaper article. And at taxpayer expense, the perpetrators appealed to the pro-discrimination Sixth Circuit, and won a Court Order to return the victim to the hostile environment! See 15 December 2011 Free Press article, p 4A, foreseeably leading to additional harassment incidents! TACOM treated him kindly compared to what it did to Pletten.

  • 4. Note that the garrison commander is quoted as saying, "If you don't like the way you're being treated, go find another job." This flat refusal to enforce federal and army anti-harassment rules blatantly establishes the lack of a functioning EEO program Army-wide such that this ranking-officer contemptuous attitude existed to be expressed at all, as a pervasiveness matter throughout the agency. It directly overturns, rejects, repeals, contradicts the rule of law which mandates
  • compliance in the "here and now," Watson v City of Memphis, 373 US 526, 533; 83 S Ct 1314; 10 L Ed 2d 529 (1963) (park context)
  • at one's present location, Missouri ex rel Gaines v Canada, 305 US 337; 59 S Ct 232; 83 L Ed 208 (1938) (education context), and
  • the "right to work," Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356; 6 S Ct 1064; 30 L Ed 220 (1886); Truax v Raich, 239 US 33; 36 S Ct 7; 60 L Ed 131; LRA 1916D, 543; Ann Cas 1917B, 283 (1915), including in safe conditions, American Zinc Co v Graham, 132 Tenn 586, 589; 179 SW 138, 139-140 (1915), cited by Prof. Alfred Blumrosen, et al, "Injunctions Against Occupational Hazards: The Right to Work Under Safe Conditions," 64 Cal. Law Rev (#3) 702 at 712 n 48 (May 1976).

  • 5. In Pletten's case, TACOM's pervasive lawless, mutinous attitude is part of the pattern in turn linked to the failure to prevent terrorist incidents due to refusal to act against the starter drug in the drug money-trail to financing terrorists. Dead people, yes, that's one result of ousting a drug-use-prevention whistleblower.

    Note data on prior pro-drug action by Army officers, as documented, click here for details. See also data on Pentagon workers and child pornography (Boston Globe, 23 July 2010).

    U.S. Attorney consiglieres aid and abet, contrary to their public posing and posturing of being "anti-drug" and anti-pornography.

    It is long-term government policy to attack whistleblowers. In attacking a whistleblower, agencies (aided and abetted by the Department of Justice, an agency "against the best interests of the United States in terms of [stopping drugs and crimes such as rape]," including by its firm policy and practice against prosecuting agency crimes against whistleblowers):

    “go well beyond merely defeating a whistle blower . . . prove to others that no one is safe . . . make the most outrageous charges possible. . . . for purposes of teaching others a lesson, the more obvious the inconsistency [with work record (and law)] the better .   .   .   .”—Thomas M. Devine and Donald G. Aplin, “Whistleblower Protection—Gap Between Law and Reality,” 31 Howard Law J (#2) 223, 226 (1988).

    • Ed. Note: See similar law review articles by, e.g.,
  • David W. Ewing, “Canning Directions: How the Government Rids Itself of Troublemakers," Harpers 16, 18, 22 (August 1979)
  • 1. transfer to irrelevant assignment
  • 2. abolish the whistleblower's job
  • 3. refuse to provide pertinent records
  • 4. file false charges
  • 5. cause high legal bills
  • 6. falsely accuse of insanity
  • 7. cut their budget
  • 8. transfer away their co-workers
  • 9. close his office without warning
  • 10. deprive of promotion
  • Stephen M. Kohn and Michael D. Kohn, “An Overview of Federal and State Whistleblower Protection," 4 Antioch Law Journal   99-152 (Summer 1986)
  • Devine & Aplin, “Abuse of Authority: The Office of the Special Counsel and Whistleblower Protection," 4 Antioch Law J   5-71 (Summer 1986).
  • Devine, “The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989: Foundation for the Modern Law of Employment Dissent," 51 Admin Law Rev (#2) 531-577 (Spring 1999)

    • Such anti-whistleblower retaliations are effectuated via ex parte means and criminal acts, e.g., extortion, embezzlement, mail fraud, falsifications, obstruction of justice including even that level of due process given slaves, criminals, terrorists! See for example, one of the slave rights cases, upholding that slaves had a right to proper notice of charges! Josephine, a slave v State of Mississippi, 39 Miss (10 Geo) 613, 647 (1861): The right to a properly drafted statement of charges is “a substantial right . . . and not a mere question of form or proceeding.” The disdainful U.S. attorney in Pletten's case, showing his personal hatred of, and loathing and contempt for constitutional rights, referred to this constitutional right as merely "precedural"!! refusing Pletten a right even slaves have!! the hatred of whistleblowers goes to that extremity!

    Here, this loathing of due process meant, pursuant to Pletten's record of writing due process 5 USC § 7513.(b) advance notices to others; crime prevention; and having never used a sick day—non-notice, crimes, and only sick days!

    Ed. Note: Other felonies include violation of
  • 18 USC § 2112 (robbing personal property)
  • 18 USC § 1951 (extortion)
  • 18 USC § 661 (embezzlement and theft)
  • 18 USC § 654 (conversion of property of another)
  • 18 USC § 641 (theft of public property)
  • 18 USC § 1111 (foreseeable deaths)
  • 18 USC § 201 (bribery)
  • 18 USC § 371 (conspiracy).

    • TACOM's lying and getting away with it, enabled, aided and abetted, was accessory-before-the fact, to the Army's lying about the Iraq War killing of Army Ranger Patrick Tillman, Jr. For background on that situation, see, e.g., Richard Corliss, "American heroes: When the Army lied about Patrick Tillman's combat death, his family fought to find the bitter truth" (Time, 30 August 2010), p 71. Following the TACOM pattern of destroying evidence, "To impede any investigation, the Army destroyed Tillman's uniform and diary." See also Jon Krakauer, Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman.

    TACOM is not merely one federal agency with a hatred for whistleblowers. All federal agencies demonstrate such hatred, along with the two agencies that are "supposed" to protect whistleblowers, the "Office of Special Counsel" (OSC) and the "Merit Systems Protection Board" (MSPB). As recently as May 2011, here is another incident, this one in the Department of Agriculture. "Federal ‘No Fear Act’ gives little recourse: Valvo led down primrose path" (Walsh County Record, North Dakota, 25 May 2011) ("whistleblower laws are flawed through exemptions and built-in weaknesses and are rarely helpful. Indeed, it might be said that whistleblower laws give only the appearance of protection, creating an illusion that is dangerous for whistleblowers who put their trust in law rather than developing skills to achieve their goals more directly [because OSC and MSPB constitute] a procedural abyss where one out of 10,000 cases hypothetically see the light of day."

    See also "A Reader’s Guide To The Recent Correction Of A Terrible Nixon Injustice" (Pentagon and Presidential lying about a four-star general, John D. Lavelle, refusing to correct the situation for decades)

    "Both in monitoring and information activities, the . . . safety program at [TACOM] served largely to check the possibility of an immediate, acute exposure crisis resulting from [TTS] and to reassure the [employees] that one would not occur. Long-term consequences of exposures below the acute symptom "threshold" were measured, analyzed and explained in terms of nationwide or worldwide populations placed at small risk, not in terms of local communities placed at greater risk. In both regards, monitoring and information, the employees of the defendant [TACOM] negligently and wrongfully breached their legal duty of care to [employees including Mr. Pletten] as [on-site personnel] placed at risk." Allen v. United States, 588 F. Supp. 247, 404 (D. Utah 1984), rev’d on other grounds, 816 F.2d 1417 (10th Cir. 1987). "[T]here is just nothing wrong with telling the American people the truth."

    Summary of the TACOM-Retaliation-Against-Pletten Case

    Violations Overview

    Violations of TACOM's Own Discipline Regulation

    Inconsistencies with the Rule of Law

    Australian Prof. Brian Martin's Site on This Case

    Whistleblowing Background

    Sample Request for Investigation for Readers to Send

    Email@Whistleblower