Fraudulent Letter From
Army, 27 Nov 1981
The below letter from the Department of the Army is a criminal fraud. It is what Kenneth W. Starr defended. Notice that the letter is dated 27 Nov 1981. But the decision it pretends had not yet been made, had already been rendered in October 1979, as a retaliation. EEOC by April 1980 alluded to the termination decision in the past tense, a fait accompli.
That retaliation arose when I was being a whistleblower, reporting agency violation of OSHA and Department of Army job safety requirements. The agency's own appellate review office USACARA ruled in my favor in January 1980, as the agency had foreseen it would. The agency thereupon immediately retaliated by removing me off-base. I objected so strenuously, as notice must be given 30 days in advance, that this fraudulent notice almost two years later was devised, and fraudulently dated 1981, not 1979.
As you read the letter, you will notice multiple other flaws and illegalities. The same person (Edward Hoover) who put me off-post in early 1980, would be reviewing his own decision by the terms of the letter, clearly not an impartial action! His true address was not given, connoting that the offer even as written was fraudulent. The signer of the letter (Carma Averhart) and the alleged contact-person aide (Gloria Gilmore) were competitors for the job, promised promotions in return for their agreeing to get rid of me.
The letter pretends I will be allowed a representative. The agency had repeatedly obstructed that, telling the one I had chosen (Ray Regiani) that he was forbidden to serve!
Contrary to federal law 5 USC § 7513.(b), the notice is written in conclusory terms. It does not detail or attach the material alluded to, does not flow logically, does not meet the conditions precedent for issuing such a letter, lacks specifics, names, dates, places of alleged events.
It refers to a separation for medical disqualification, but what followed was a removal for unstated misconduct. "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.
By the letter being so vague and contradictory (removal vs. medical disqualification), it deprived me of the right and ability to reply, so the pretense of offering me the right to reply was a sham.
Even as a medical disqualification notice, it was inadequate as it cited no qualification requirements! nor how they were not being met! Its own staff had admitted violations of OSHA and Army requirements. The OPM official with authority to make the OPM decision alleged, had not done so, and was unnamed. Regardless, OPM clearly agreed with the doctors supporting my ability to work. OPM disagreed with the agency, and in such cases, the agency is to return the employee to duty, not demand that the employee provide data to refute the favorable OPM decision.
The letter falsely claimed that I would be allowed to provide affidavits and statements of witnesses. The agency forbad me on post to do so. Moreover, there were no specifics of any misconduct on my part, leaving me unaware of what allegations of misconduct to ask witnesses to refute. The letter falsely identified my status (sick leave) vs LWOP which the local regulation 600-5.14-28 banned.
The letter falsely said reply would be given full and impartial consideration. The decision signer (David Stallings) admitted under oath that he was not even aware of my position! Tr at. 9 and 11.
The letter falsely said I could view the material relied on, when I requested, the request was denied. Clearly, even minimal due process was denied me.
I would soon be seeking EEOC review of the matter. The agency was terrified of EEOC integrity, so refused to let me have the review, though allowing review pursuant to 29 CFR § 1613 is mandatory. The agency wanted to force me to MSPB, an agency whose adjudicators notoriously take bribes and aid and abet the bribing of employees, see, e.g., the Congressional Testimony by Thomas A. Constantine, Administrator Drug Enforcement Administration, before the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, regarding SWB Corruption (14 May 1997).
The TACOM letter from smoker Carma Averhart reflected typical smoker mental disorder symptoms. Thus it was so poorly drafted, so blunted, vague, non-specific, that it could not be sustained by any legitimate review. Due to its inadequacies, Pletten was denied the right to reply in advance of the decision being made. Wherefore, there is no reasonable doubt that the agency bribed MSPB adudicators. Moreover, this fact is undisputed due to TACOM and accessories' obstruction of justice and flight from review having probative value to guilt pursuant to precedents such as Albert v U.S., 162 US 499, 510-511; 16 S Ct 864; 40 L Ed 1051 (1896); People v Andrew Luster, 2003 WL 21509182 (Cal App, July 2003); and
Wangerin v State, 73 Wis 2d 427; 243 NW2d 448, 453 (1976) ("flight" having "probative value to guilt") citing U. S. v Crisp, 435 F2d 354 (CA 7, 1970).
Kenneth Starr supported the agency misconduct.
The text follows:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
UNITED STATES ARMY TANK-AUTOMOTIVE COMMAND
WARREN MICHIGAN 48090
DRSTA-ALS 27 NOV 1981
SUBJECT: Removal - Mr. Leroy Pletten
Mr. Leroy Pletten
8401 18 Mile Rd, Apt #29
Sterling Heights, MI 48078
1. This is to advise that it is proposed to separate you from Federal service due to medical disqualification.
2. Your personal physicians have indicated that your condition requires an absolutely smoke free work environment, free of any smoke particulates. It has been established that while the working conditions at TACOM meet all OSHA and Department of the Army requirements an absolutely smoke free environment cannot be assured you. For this reason, this office filed for disability retirement in your behalf. In a decision dated 5 October 1981, the Office of Personnel Management, Retirement and Insurance Program Office advised the Command that the application for disability retirement was disapproved.
| Ed. Note: OPM rejected TACOM's claims, confirmed my ability to work! TACOM here chooses to ignore OPM's expert findings! |
3. As a result [no, in defiance thereof], by letter dated 2 November 1981 you were requested to furnish to the Civilian Health Clinic any available revised medical information. Inasmuch as nothing was received from you by the due date of 10 November 1981 there is no basis for returning you to duty at this installation.
4. You have the right to reply to this advance notice of proposed removal personally, in writing, or both, within 15 calendar days from receipt of this letter. You have the right to be represented by an attorney or other representative. You may be accompanied by your representative when making an oral reply. If your representative is an Army employee, he/she is authorized reasonable official duty time to assist you in preparing any reply. Arrangements for the use of this official time must be made by your representative with her/her supervisor. You may submit any or all reasons why you believe this separation should not be effected. You may also furnish affidavits and statements of witnesses in support of your position. Your reply should be addressed to Mr. E. E. Hoover, Civilian Personnel Officer, ATTN: DRSTA-ALM, Tank-Automotive Command, Warren, MI 48090. Should you desire to make a personal reply, you may contact Mr. Hoover, at telephone number 574-6346 for an appointment. Consideration will be given to extending the time limit for your reply, provided you request an extension and give valid reasons for such request to Mr. Hoover.
5. If you present a reply, it will be given full and impartial consideration; and a decision will be based on your reply and a review of the facts contained in this letter. If you do not reply, a decision will be made based upon review of the facts in support of this proposed separation. In either event, you will be furnished a written notice of decision.
6. You will continue to be carried in a sick leave status pending final decision. The material relied on to support this proposal is available in my office. You may make arrangements to review this material by contacting me at my office, telephone number 574-6221.
7. Mrs. Gloria Gilmore, Chief, Management Employee Relations Branch, Civilian Personnel Division, is available to answer any questions concerning the procedural and regulatory aspects of this matter. Mrs. Gilmore may be contacted at telephone number 574-8512 for an appointment.
Carma J. Averhart
Carma J. Averhart
C, Pos & Pay Mgt Br
|
Email@Crime Prevention Officer
|
Ed. Note: Averhart was a smoker: