Commanding General
Attn: EEO Officer                                                6 March 1998
Military District of Washington
Washington DC 20319

         Information corroborating that the Accused Discriminating Official (ADO) has a pattern of hiding perjury has surfaced. See Bradley A. Stertz and Kenneth Cole, "Claims that he hid perjury could undercut Starr's moral tone," The Detroit News, 5 March 1998, p 7B. He saw that he could get away with it in my situation.

         There was no deterrent effect . Your office was requested to provide counseling in 1991. The obstruction of justice which the refusal to act shows, as follow-ups have been to no avail, constitutes an additional pattern of continuing discrimination. Others are not subjected to such obstruction. Once counseling begins, and the 29 CFR § 1613/1614 review process (investigation and hearing including testimony and cross-examination), other evidence of Starr's pattern (falsification of documents, forgery, extortion, drug smuggling, etc.) will be presented via documentation. The above-cited data will be gone into; the persons cited will be witnesses.

         Michigan law abolished the distinction between "principals" and "accessories." The said ADO is an “accessory during the fact.” See definition, Black's Law Dictionary, "One who stands by without interfering or giving such help as may be in his power to prevent the commission of a criminal offense." The crimes and obstruction of justice re which review is sought, were in process during the time of his known role, and continuing. Continued obstruction for his personal benefit corroborates the continuing aspect.

         The pattern includes continuing violations of the federal code of ethics, fundamental principles of which are that employees shall take action against fraud, abuse and corruption and not be accessory to it; shall not use public office for private gain; shall not engage in conflicts of interest, etc. Without repeating the documentary evidence, examples of the crimes of record include but are not limited to the following:

         (A) pattern of falsification of agency hiring documents so as to allow drug abusers whose conduct is dangerous to themselves, others, and property to be hired and retained;

         (B) pattern of drug smuggling and resultant hazardous conduct in violation of federal and Michigan law;

         (C) extortion directed against me as a whistleblower exposing same;

         (D) obstruction of justice via refusal to obey agency regulations re mandatory implementation of USACARA Report an employee wins exposing official misconduct;

         (E) aiding and abetting false claims, e.g., that contractual aspects prevent solution; and of purported actions taken; restating them even after they have been conclusively refuted; forgery of documents and/or bribery of adjudicators to cite non-existent documents not in the record, while disregarding actual official personnel documents of record;

         (F) disregarding and defying the vast body of pertinent statutory, regulatory and case law, etc., etc.;

         (G) obstructing the criminal investigation which I got CID to commence, and which had begun verifying the above forgery/bribery; and

         (H) obstruction of justice via preventing review of the herein situation, thereby treating me differently than others similarly situated (others are allowed review in their forum choice; and are notified of forum choice options -- which also has been refused me).

         Stephen Gillers, Prof., Legal Ethics, NYU School of Law, says “The rule is clear and uniform. A lawyer who learns that a witness he's handled has lied has an obligation to ask the witness to correct the lie, failing which he has an obligation to correct it himself.” Starr violated both provisos. This requests review begin immediately.

                                                                                 Sincerely,

                                                                                 Leroy J. Pletten
                                                                                 Pos Clas Spec - Crime Prevention Ofcr
Enclosure: Detroit News Article

         Washington -- Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr has defended General Motors Corp. in a handful of product liability cases since 1993, when he joined the prestigious law firm Kirkland & Ellis.

         But it's his involvement in a lawsuit the giant automaker settled four years ago that threatens to undercut Starr's moral authority to query President Clinton on allegations that he had an illicit affair with a White House intern, then obstructed justice by urging her to lie about it.

         South Carolina attorney J. Kendall Few earlier this seek said Starr -- while representing GM in cases brought by families of people killed or injured in truck fires -- knew an employee of the automaker lied on the witness stand. But Few claims Starr helped “cover up the perjury,” thus obstructing justice.

         Auto safety advocates -- most of whom are Democrats -- delight in the strange twist of fate now facing Starr, a highly respected Beltway attorney and former jurist.

         “It strikes me as the irony of the decade that the man who is investigating the president for obstruction of justice now stands accused of obstructing justice and possibly faces a grand jury inquiry,” said Ralph Hoar, a Virginia auto safety advocate.

         Conservatives, however, smell a fraud, hinting that the recent accusations against Starr are the product of the Clinton White House.

         “It seems the Clinton Justice Department is coming out into the open to be used as a sword in Ken Starr's side," said Larry Klayman, counsel for the conservative Judicial Watch. “Think about it.

         “Here we have these allegations of misconduct in a case settled years ago that somehow ends up in the hands of a U.S. attorney in South Carolina, who then forwards it to the main Justice Department in Washington. And who controls the Justice Department? Bill Clinton.

         “It just looks dirty, very suspicious.” [Please see STARR, Page 7B]

         [Page 7 B] Numerous Clinton supporters have been attacking Starr. On Wednesday, several prominent Democrat lawmakers, including Reps. John Conyers of Detroit and John Dingell of Dearborn, formally asked Atty. Gen. Janet Reno to investigate Starr's conduct. GM, however, said Starr acted properly in all cases it [he] handled for the automaker.

         Few, in a telephone interview, claimed he's not partisan.

         “I don't know what the Democrats are up to,” Few said. “I can only tell you what I'm up to, and I haven't been in contact with anyone in politics on either side of the aisle.”

         But, according to the Federal Election Commission, he and his wife, Judith, contributed $11,000 this decade to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates for office, including the Clinton-Gore campaign. The only Republican to receive a check from the couple was South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond for $1,000.

         Others contend Few's allegations against Starr underscore how attorneys specializing in product-liability lawsuits against the automakers rapidly trade information and tips on related cases in hopes of collecting evidence that will reap them huge jury awards.

         “They're a closely knit community, and word travels fast,” said Kyle Johnson, GM spokesman on legal and safety issues.

         Regardless who's right, Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University Law School, said it would be a travesty for Starr if the allegations re true.

         “The rule is clear and uniform,” he said. “A lawyer who learns that a witness he's handled has lied has an obligation to ask the witness to correct the lie, failing which he has an obligation to correct it himself.”

         Gillers knows Starr, who also teaches at NYU Law School.

         "And I would be flabbergasted to think for one second that Starr would tolerate perjury in one of his cases," the professor said.

         Starr negotiated a settlement for the automaker in Cameron v GM, the specific case in which Few accuses him of covering up perjury.