Brief to OPM, 29 March 1983, supplementing the one of 21 March 1983, in Continued Opposition to April 1981 Agency Application, Retaliating Against Pletten's Whistleblowing. The retaliation took the form of multiple violations, including but not limited to:
  • Inconsistencies and Due Process Violations Warranting Reversal: pdf, html
  • Violations of TACOM's Own Discipline Regulation: pdf, html
  • Violations Overview: pdf, html.
  • See also the Amicus Curiae Brief.
    The goal was to encourage OPM to continue fighting on Pletten's behalf. Area U.S. Attorney staff and federal judges were later corrupted to ignore this evidence.
    The ex parte-obtained corruption went to the extreme of saying Pletten applied! The record shows he fought continually, and continues to do so, now the year 2001.
    See also other Briefs in the series, e.g., 27 July 1983, 25 Nov 1983, and 2 Jan 1985, as per his working full-time+ developing every evidence for recognition of his remaining an employee absent a 30 days notice of charges IAW federal law 5 U.S.C. § 7513.(b) warranting removal, and recording his position, for anticipated use in the EEOC forum, which TACOM was claiming would be reviewing the matter.
    More in the series will be posted as scanned. The volume is enormous, takes some time.

    • UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
    CSA BRIEF
    MAR 29 1983
    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    Pages
    Data in Support of 22 Feb 83 Analysis under which
    no Disability can be Shown, as a Matter of Law (0%)    		2 - 8
    Disability Retirement is Improper considering the
    Refusal of Implementation of the 25 Jan 80 Report    		9 - 13
    Data on Safety Guidance, with an Example (Radioactivity)
    among many concerning non-compliance locally    		14 - 21
    Smoking as so Circumscribed and Limited that the OPM
    Analysis is further Supported on Lack of a Local Case    		22 - 25
    Addiction as a Superordinate Term Covering Many, if not
    all, Aspects of Smoker Mental Disorder, as Discussed in
    Court Precedents and Medical Literature, with Context from
    the Symptoms Displayed by Local Personnel    		26 - 54
    Smoking Behavior and Alcoholism: Diseases55 - 58
    Smoking Behavior, Prejudice, and Crime and Intent in Law59 - 61
    Smoking as Disease Leads to Other Diseases, concerning which
    on Some of Them, Smokers May Seek Fraudulent Disability
    Retirements, Just as Smokers Gave False Data to OPM on Me    		62 - 72
    Army Problems with Smoking and Disease Including Reference
    from Early Surgeon General, as Insight on Why AR 1-8 was
    Issued, Since Smokers Cannot Respect Themselves or Others    		73 - 76
    Medical Misconduct at the Installation: Examples77 - 79
    EEO Principles on Discrimination, as Consistent with Data
    from Case Law Precedents from Courts    		80 - 86
    Concluding Analysis and Request for Relief87 - 92

    This Brief provides Overall Information
    concerning which the Motions
    make brief reference.

    Page 1 of 92 pages



    (pp 2-16)

    Prohibited Personnel Practices

    Violation of Regulation 
     
    29 CFR § 1613.701 etc.The required “reasonable accommodation” presupposes compliance with basic rules. Local [TACOM] employees deny any hazard or violation [exists] and thus [they] refuse to begin regular rule enforcement. As the process has not starred, local [TACOM] employees also refuse to begin “reasonable accommodation.”

    For example, AR 1-8 requires that the environment “not endanger . . . cause discomfort or unreasonable annoyance.” The environment does these things to the extent [TACOM] management refuses to let me return to duty, but it refuses to halt the endangerment and discomfort the regulation prohibits.

    [TACOM] Management refuses to implement the “unqualified and absolute” safety duty specified by OSHA [29 USC § 651 - § 678] in Nat’l Rlty & C. Co., Inc. v. OSHRC [160 U.S. App. DC 133], 489 F.2d 1257 (1973). Compliance with OSHA (or 5 USC § 7902) would undoubtedly preclude need for superimposing “reasonable accommodation” on top of the “unqualified and absolute” duty. Achieving a non-endangering, non-discomforting environment would likewise undoubtedly preclude need for superimposing the “reasonable accommodation” duty on top. However, achieving them would most assuredly provide a sound basis for then beginning the “reasonable accommodation” process.

    The local [TACOM] employees involved also refuse to enforce other rules such as on courtesy, littering, loafing, efficiency, property control, etc. Enforcement of any one rule would resolve the situation. The local property control regulation, TACOM-R 190-4 is based on the same police power authority as was upheld in Austin v. Tennessee, 179 US 343 (1900). The rule forbids any habit-forming drug without a valid doctor’s prescription. It also limits personal effects to non-dangerous items. Even if personal effects were allowed to be dangerous, such would not allow personal reasons to be a basis for adverse action against a victim such as myself harmed by such personal effects.

    No reason has ever been provided for the refusal to (a) enforce the pertinent rules and (b) begin reasonable accommodation. Even if there are reasons (and there are none, or they would have been articulated––although untimely), there is no cause for adverse action until after any alleged reasons are stated and opportunity to reply provided. Cf. 5 CFR § 752 and advance notice [5 USC § 7513(b)] requirements.

    As made clear in cases such as State of Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 US 337 (1938); Brown v. U.S., 256 US 335 (1921); and Sleeper v. Sandown, 52 N.H. 244 (1872), movement in safety is extensive and not limited to one room. Cf. OSHA cases and 5 USC § 7902. Reasonable accommodation superimposed on top of these basic legal facts will assuredly allow immediate return to duty in safe conditions.

    Page 17 of 92 pages.Affiant's initials _________


    (pp 18-30)

    Introduction to Psychology [Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.], 4th edition [1967], by [Ernest R.] Hilgard and [Richard C.] Atkinson, at 537, indicates that certain mental disorders “are classified as ‘psychogenic’ or ‘functional,’ meaning that there is no identifiable organic change in the brain or nervous system associated with them. There are in addition to these reactions many kinds of mental disturbance associated with known organic changes in the brain or nervous system––with alcoholism, acute infections, syphilis, tumors, head injuries, epilepsy, and cerebral arteriosclerosis (hardening of the arteries). Usually the individual has shown normal adjustment prior to the disease or injury, and his subsequent peculiarities in behavior are attributed to damage of the nervous system.” The book goes on to caution that reaction might be different with “An already unstable individual.” The book indicates that once “damage of the nervous system” occurs in such a person, “An already unstable individual might become psychotic following a brain injury, while a better-adjusted person might show little change in behavior.”

    “An already unstable individual might become psychotic following a brain injury.” Tobacco organic mental disorder is an organic disorder. Smoking behavior is known for the adverse organic effects it produces. The suicidal nature of smoking is a matter of public domain knowledge; smoking behavior is 'slow-motion suicide.’

    In Psychology for Better Living, [5th ed., (New York: John Wiley, 1965)], Dr. [Lyle] Tussing at 361 - 362 notes, “The treatment for mental illness is called psychotherapy. The patients are interviewed periodically . . . Some have to be confined to cells with padded walls to keep them from doing harm to themselves; others have to be confined to keep them from doing harm to other people.” In the situation at bar, honoring AR 1-8 guidance against letting smokers “endanger” others would be a solution. Dr. Tussing continues, “But unless they are violent, they are encouraged to relax and engage in conversation with each other, and they are taught arts and crafts such as painting, sewing, and clay modeling.” In the case at bar, smokers are uncommunicative. They are unable to speak or write coherently. Their communications, if any, appear at the “word salad” level. The culpable offenders appear to lack the insight to recognize the incomprehensible nature of their incoherent disregard of rational meanings of words and phrases. Data on neologisms sheds insight on such deviant misuse of language. When smokers are suffering from aphasia or other communication disorder(s), the therapy of “conversation with” others is indicated, to such extent, if any, that the causative brain damage that has already occurred is reversible. Therapy such as teaching them arts and crafts may also be of value in controlling their fixation on their “highly overlearned” “odd stereotyped gestures” of hand-mouth motions [smoking]. Arts and crafts therapy may be useful in rehabilitating persons with an obsession for for compulsive deviant hand movements [smoking].

    Dr. Tussing notes that “The vast majority of mental-hospital patients . . are more like cattle, sitting around until someone tells them what to do next.” When smokers are apathetic and indifferent to reality, it is therapeutic when “someone tells them what to do next.” Hence, AR 1-8 envisions a personal standard. A nonsmoker makes a “personal determination” which informs listless and disturbed smokers of AR 1-8 guidance and “tells them what to do next.”

    Page 31 of 92 pages.Affiant's initials _________


    (pp 32-52)
    The similarities of symptoms in various mental disorders provide insight and a deeper understanding of the behavior patterns of the [TACOM, MSPB, court] deciding officials. The book, Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life, 5th edition [Scott, Foresman & Co, 1976], by James C. Coleman, at 12, cites the misconception “that mental disorder is something to be ashamed of” and the “fear of one's own susceptibility to mental disorder.” That reality along with the reprisal that has occurred against me [an educated person] for bringing up the issue of smoker mental disorders is particularly pertinent concerning the fact that the disorders involved are common. Reprisal is more likely, not less likely, when the person with the power [e.g., Edward Hoover, John J. Benacquista, Francis J. Holt, etc.] to take reprisal, actually is disordered.

    Citing other disorders may tend to divert such fears. The fear problem is widespread: at 12, “Fears of possible mental disorder are quite common.” My citing [psychiatric] conditions that [EEOC, OPM, MESC, DODIG vs. MSPB and TACOM] reviewers more likely than not, do not have and do not even fear that they have, provides insight for credibility.

    The book, Tobaccoism or How Tobacco Kills, 1927, by Dr. John H. Kellogg, states at 77,
    “Dr. Frankl-Hochwart, after a careful study of several thousand cases, states that 'the localisation of the toxic action of nicotine is much like that of syphilis,' that is, upon the nerves and blood-vessels.”   “Tobacco, like alcohol and opium, acts especially upon the nervous system (Campbell).” “Recent studies of the brain and nerves by the refined methods of the modern laboratory, show that every irritant poison produces immediate damage of the fine structures of the brain, lessening the acuteness of thought and the quickness and accuracy of nerve activity. . . . The free or prolonged use of tobacco is recognized as one of the most common causes of insanity.” At 41, “Tobacco, by incessant irritation, predisposes to mucous plaques and cancer. On this account syphilitics are forbidden to smoke.”

    Coleman, at 464, states,
    “General paresis is a mental disorder caused by the progressive infiltration and destruction of brain tissue by the spirochetes of syphilis. It has also been variously called general paralysis of the insane, dementia paralytica, and paresis. . . . The first symptoms usually appear about 10 to 15 years after the primary infection, although the incubation period may be as short as 2 years or as long as 40. Unless the person receives treatment, the outcome is always fatal, death usually occurring within 2 to 3 years after the initial symptoms. General paresis is associated with a wide range of behavioral and psychological symptoms. During the early phase of this disorder, the individual typically becomes careless and inattentive and makes mistakes in his work. At first he may notice his mistakes but attributes them to being overtired; later he does not even notice them. . . . Comprehension and judgment suffer, and the individual may show a tendency to evade important problems, or he may react to them with smug indifference. Accompanying these symptoms is a blunting of affect . . . He seems unable to realize the seriousness of his behavior and may become irritable or resort to ready rationalizations if his behavior is questioned. . . . As the disorder progresses . . . the individual is unmannerly, tactless, unconcerned with his appearance, and unethical [abulic] in his behavior. Memory defects, which may be noticeable in the early phases of the illness, become more obvious. . . . This memory impairment extends to remote events, and the individual tends to fill in memory losses by various fabrications.”
    Page 53 of ____92___ pages.Affiant's initials _________


    (p 54)

    In 1899, Dr. Woods noted that smoking "often leads to drink." Both smoking and alcoholism produce additional diseases, including physical diseases. It is thus foreseeable that data on physical disorders would notice any synergistic or combined effects. Since the data on smoking and alcoholism is well-established, such data is not only available, it is widely available and used as recently as the 1982 Report of the Surgeon General.

    For example, at 7, the Report indicates, "The use of alcohol in combination with smoking acts synergistically to greatly increase the risk for esophageal cancer mortality." Indeed, at 101, "Numerous investigators have found a synergistic relationship between the use of tobacco in various forms, alcohol consumption, and the development of cancer of the esophagus." These include:

    T. Hirayama, "Prospective Studies on Cancer Epidemiology Based on Census Population in Japan," in Cancer Epidemiology, Environmental Factors, Volume 3, Proceedings of the llth International Cancer Congress, Florence, Italy, October 20-26, 1974. Amsterdam, Excerpta Medica, 1975, pp. 26-35.

    M. Kamionkowski, and B. Fleshier, "The Role of Alcoholic Intake in Esophageal Carcinoma," Am. J. of the Med. Sciences 249(6): 696-700, June 1965.

    B. Kissin, M. Kaley, W. Su, and R. Lerner, "Head and Neck Cancer in Alcoholics: The Relationship to Drinking, Smoking, and Dietary Patterns, J. Am. Med. Ass'n 224(8): 1174-1175, 21 May 1973.

    B. Schoenberg, J. Bailar, and J. Praumeni, "Certain Mortality Patterns of Esophageal Cancer in the United States. 1930-1967," J. of the Nat'1 Cancer Inst. 46(1): 63-73, January 1971.

    D. Schottenfeld, "Alcohol as a Co-factor in the Etiology of Cancer," Cancer 43(5, Supplement): 1962-1966, May 1979.

    K. Takano, K. Osogoshi, N. Kaminura, K. Kanda, K. Kane, R. Kamiyama, K. Sakamoto, H. Sato, Y. Shirai, M. Sei, T. Tanabe, M. Horino, Y. Minami, H. Motoji, R. Morita, H. Orihata, and T. Hirayama, "Schokudogan no ekigaku, toku ni atsui inshokubutsu, inshu, kitsuen narabi, ni eiyo ketsubo ni tsuit (Epidemiology of Esophageal Cancer . . . )," Intl J. of Cancer 5: 152-156, 1970.

    R. Williams, and J. Horm, "Association of Cancer Sites with Tobacco and Alcohol Consumption and Socioeconoroic Status of Patients: Interview Study from the Third National Cancer Survey," J. of the Nat'l Cancer Inst. 58(3): 525-547, March 1977.

    E. Wynder and I. Bross, "A Study of Etiological Factors in Cancer of the Esophagus," Cancer 14(2): 389-413, March/April 1961.

    E. Wynder, M. Mushinski, and J. Spivak, "Tobacco and Alcohol Consumption in Relation to the Development of Multiple Primary Cancers," Cancer 40(4): 1872-1878, October 1977.

    Page 55 of ___92____ pages.                                                          Affiant's initials _________


    (p 56)

    The Surgeon General's Report for 1982 contains data on smoking and alcoholism, in the context of efforts to halt smoking behavior that involve relapses. At 277, “The factors governing whether or not relapse crises actually resulted in smoking were explored in analyses of over 30 variables. Only a few were significant. The presence of another smoker, the consumption of alcohol, and the location of the occurrence were all instrumental.” At 278, “When alcohol was consumed, 61 percent of crises led to relapse, as opposed to 33 percent in the absence of alcohol.”

    See the Mich. Law Rev. 81(1): 237-258, November 1982, at 240, “Overwhelming clinical evidence supports characterizing smoking as a physical addiction . . . as a disease.” Smoking is a dangerous disease, because it is inherently dangerous and “persists even though the addict knows it subjects him to serious risk of death” from numerous causes. The dangerous aspect alone, apart from the disease aspect, does “affect third persons in much the same sense as a disease may be communicable,” words borrowed from McIntosh v. Milano [168 N J Super 466], 403 A.2d 500 (1979). The disease known as “smoking” is “communicable” not only in its effects on nonsmokers, but also by contact with smokers. As a disease, it is foreseeable that smokers will infect/re-infect ex-smokers and attempted ex-smokers.

    The 1982 Surgeon General's Report discusses at 276 “the circumstances surrounding their relapses. Most took place either at home or in a bar, tavern, or restaurant.” At 277, “The presence or another smoker, the consumption of alcohol, and the location of the occurrence were all instrumental.” At 276, “Other persons were present at 83 percent of the relapses . . . Sixty-two percent of relapses occurred when other people were smoking; 46 percent of relapse cigarettes were requested from others, 11 percent were offered by others, and only 27 percent were bought.” Such data is consistent which smoking “as a disease” in both the early and late stages of the “disease” and the multiple, additional diseases that smoking “causes” and “leads to.” As a matter of sound orientation for time, other diseases can also produce symptoms immediately upon contact, or after a period of time, or both. As a matter of sound orientation for person and place, disease is more likely around diseased persons, and around assemblies of diseased persons. Diseases such as alcoholism and smoking are foreseeable in such places as “a bar” or a “tavern.” Smoker brain damage is evident in their disorientation for time, person, and place, in their continued coming into contact with diseased persons whose disease is “communicable.”

    AR 1-8 warns against smoking behavior as a communicable danger to nonsmokers. AR 1-8 is to be enforced and obeyed without reaching the issue of smoker alcoholism. The endangerment is prohibited regardless of whether smoker “dangerousness” is more or less “communicable” when they have other diseases as well. Alcoholic smokers foreseeably pose a danger to nonsmokers (as well as to smokers). However, the disease known as “smoking” (“tobaccoism”–Dr. Kellogg's term) is not allowed to endanger nonsmokers, whether or not the diseased person also has a condition such as alcoholism. Since “Other persons were present at 83 percent of the relapse,” the disease is “communicable rapidly.” (The remaining 17 percent of cases involve contact at a time other than immediately “at . . . the relapses.”) AR 1-8 forbids both the fast and slow “communicable” danger.

    Page 57 of ____92___ pages.Affiant's initials _________

    The well-established connection of smoking behavior and alcohol use behavior is evident in the medical literature. For example, in The Lancet, Vol. 2(7105): 725-727, 31 October 1959, at 726, “men who took alcohol regularly–i.e., at least once a week–were much more likely to be heavy smokers.” Moreover, as is foreseeable from data on smoking and alcoholism as diseases, “nearly 90% of those who had smoked regularly had taken up the habit among friends most of whom were smokers.” While “‘dangerousness’ . . . may affect third persons in much the same sense as a disease may be communicable,” McIntosh v. Milano [168 N J Super 466], 403 A.2d 500 at 512 (1979), “disease” as disease in the case of smoking is clearly communicable. As it is a disease, avoidance (tantamount to quarantine) behavior includes not getting the disease, or other disease that the first disease “leads to.” Smoking “leads to” alcoholism. Foreseeably, “non-smoking tended to be associated with abstention from alcohol.”

    The article, “Smoking and alcoholism,” by B. M. Maletzky, M.D., and J. Klotter, M.D., in the Am. J. of Psychiatry, Vol. 131(4), pp. 445-447, April 1974, notes a “high correlation between smoking and drinking behaviors. . . . once these addictions are established, they evidently operate independently of each other (although they can be behaviorally associated . . .).” In that study, “Alcoholic subjects were selected from . . . Lyster Army Hospital, Fort Rucker, Ala.” Also, “the analysis revealed no subjects who significantly decreased their cigarette consumption while abstaining from drinking.” Even when there was “a decrease in the amount of alcohol they were consuming, the number of cigarettes they smoked was essentially the same as . . . before, underscoring the apparent autonomy of these two addictive behaviors.” At 446, such “data confirm previous reports of a positive association between smoking and drinking behavior.”

    The article, “Smoking and Alcoholism: A Brief Report,” by R. G. Walton, M.D., in the Am. J. of Psychiatry, Vol. 128(11), pp. 1455-1456, May 1972, provides like [similar] data. That study covered persons admitted to hospitals “for withdrawal from alcohol” “Over a two-month period.” “Out of the group of 130 patients admitted for withdrawal from alcohol, 126 answered 'yes' to the question ‘Do you smoke?’ In response to the question ‘How much do you smoke?’ 123 patients stated that they smoked one pack a day or more.” Dr. Walton was a supervisor in a “Mental Health Hygiene Consultation Service” at a “U.S. Army Health Clinic.” It was his “clinical impression that almost all hospitalized alcoholics are heavy smokers.”

    In The Medical Journal of Australia, Vol. 1, pp. 1271-1274, 30 June 1973, D. Ferguson discusses such “forms of drug abuse, in the sense of drug as ‘a substance used to stupefy or poison or for self-indulgence’ (Chambers Dictionary, 1959). In this sense all use is abuse . . . .” At 1272, “The association with drinking is well recognized. Smoking was therefore associated with major sources of mental and physical ill health . . . .” At 1273, “The associations between smoking, drinking, neurosis . . . suggest some causal interrelationship.” See the data from Dr. Matthew Woods, in J.A.M.A., Vol. XXXII(13), pp. 683-687, 1 April 1899, smoking “to repeat again familiar facts, weakens the memory . . . leads to intemperance . . . causes insanity . . . .”

    Page 58 of ____92___ pages.Affiant's initials _________


    (pp 59-78)

    Tarasoff v. Regents of U. of California [17 Cal 3d 425], 131 Cal. Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334 ([July] 1976), provides insight.
    "When a doctor or a psychotherapist, in the exercise of his professional skill and knowledge, determines, or should determine, that a warning is essential to avert danger arising from the medical or psychological condition of his patient, he incurs a legal obligation to give that warning."
    In this case, Dr. Holt refuses to warn management of the danger; he pretends such action is "not" his "province." He refuses to examine smokers who cause endangerment to determine if they are suffering any of the known smoker mental illnesses; he refuses to take preventive steps such as confining them or declaring them unfit for duty. He fails to initiate action to have them declared "not ready, willing and able to work." Indeed, he perpetrates a double wrong. He refuses to act even when other doctors call his attention to the need to act. He ignores the duty to act, even when USACARA called such duty to the attention of all, on 25 Jan 80. Dr. Holt ignores AR 1-8 and rules such as the FPM Suppl. 752-1 guidance against posing a danger to self or others—a rule smokers routinely break. Even worse, he has engaged in reprisal against me.

    [The article by Prof. Alfred Blumrosen, et al, "Injunctions Against Occupational Hazards: The Right to Work Under Safe Conditions"] 64 Cal. Law Rev. [#3] 702 at 707 ([May] 1976) uses the phrase "fits comfortably within existing principles of equity" to describe application of new guidance with old concepts. A physician can be held responsible for negligently failing to diagnose tuberculosis when family members were thereby placed at risk, Hoffmann v. Blackmon, 241 So.2d 752 (Fla. App. 1970). Dr. Holt has clearly taken no steps to diagnose conditions such as smoker schizophrenia, tobacco dependence, delusions of grandeur, tobacco organic mental disorder withdrawal syndrome, paranoia, etc.

    It is wrong for a doctor toIt is clearly wrong to give management wrong data that the rules are being complied with, that smoking is not a hazard, that no employees have a smoker mental disorder, that ill effects of smoking do not spread to others, [while not saying] that ambient smoke can aggravate and trigger asthma episodes, that ambient smoke can initiate disease such as lung cancer, that ambient tobacco smoke can be fatal to certain individuals, that the sensitivity to tobacco smoke is common, that tobacco smoke can change healthy non-smokers to sick, that smokers are dangerous to themselves, that smokers have higher suicide and mental disorder and auto accident death rates, etc., etc. Obviously, the AR 1-8 goals are not being complied with; and the installation physician has not been willing to say that. He has, instead, repeatedly claimed the opposite. As a physician, he knows better. Ignorance is not an excuse. Scienter is not an excuse; it is an offense. Scienter is not an excuse; it is a violation.

    Even if smoker mental disorders were "confidential," the duty to society is paramount. See Simonsen v. Swenson [104 Neb 224], 177 N.W. 831 [9 ALR 1250] (Neb. 1920). The rights of healthy people have priority. That is the AR 1-8 philosophy. Smokers are not allowed to make people ill.

    Page 79 of ___92____ pages.Affiant's initials _________


    (pp 80-82)

    It is not acceptable in law to send people “elsewhere” to obtain the protections the law provides, State of Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 [59 S Ct 232; 83 L Ed 208 (1938)]. The “unitary” nature of law and the duty to comply is well-established in both the safety and the discrimination situations. Even compliance in one area does not excuse violations in other areas. In this case, of course, there is clearly “no evidence” of compliance; instead, there is “overwhelming evidence” of non-compliance. It is not necessary to show violation of the awesome legal duties such as the “unqualified and absolute” duty “above all other considerations.” The 25 Jan 80 USACARA Report was based on local violation of AR 1-8 guidance for “an environment reasonably free of contamination” to eliminate behavior that would “endanger life or property, cause discomfort or unreasonable annoyance to nonsmokers, or infringe upon their rights.” When endangerment, discomfort, and other violations are evident, it is clear that the “environment” has not even been made “reasonably free of contamination.”

    Compliance is to be “integrated” without the need “to leave” or go “elsewhere.” Cf. Griffin v. State of Maryland, 378 U.S. 130 [84 S Ct 1770; 12 L Ed 2d 754 (1964)]. The safety duty is consistent with the integration duty. “And racially integrated working conditions are valid objects for employee action. N.L.R.B. v. Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd., 9 Cir., 349 F.2d 1 (1965),” as noted in United Packinghouse Food & Allied Wkrs, Int. U. v. N.L.R.B., 416 F.2d 1126 at 1135 (1969). The court also noted that “The principle of ‘divide and conquer’ is older than the history of labor relations in this country, but that does not lessen its application here.” The bizarre, disconnected. and blunted assertions and personal attacks make against me show the accuracy of data from the March 1981 Michigan Law Review [Vol. 79 (Issue # 4), pp 754-756, review of Mental Disabilities and Criminal Responsibility by Herbert Fingarette [Ph.D.] and Anne Fingarette Hasse (Berkeley: Univ of Calif Press, 1979)], p. 754, “. . . criminal actions resulting from mental disease are often purposeful, intentional, and ingeniously planned . . . .” The 25 Jan 80 Report supported my reading of AR 1-8, even to the point of noting that “the other nonsmokers also have rights even though they have not actively pursued such rights. No evidence was offered to indicate that the Command [TACOM] had considered the rights of all nonsmokers.” The compliance duty is "unitary"; it does not apply to “only the one nonsmoker.” There is “No evidence” of such consideration and, hence, “No evidence” of such compliance.

    Cf. U.S. v. Hayes Int'l Corp., 415 F.2d 1038 at 1045 [CA 5, 1969]. “We take the position that in such a case, irreparable injury should be presumed from the very fact that the statute has been violated. Whenever a qualified . . . employee is discriminatory denied . . . a position . . . he suffers irreparable injury and so does the labor force of the country as a whole.” The government is supposed to be a model employer setting an example on safety and discrimination. Yet, the malice and abuse directed against me for winning the favorable 25 Jan 80 Report is the worst I have seen, in either the private or public sectors. The disconnect was in process before “the agency fabled to abide by the” guidance, and worsened thereafter. At least that case was processed; see the 23 Feb 82 EEOC decision for data on [TACOM] misprocessing of other cases. When there is “a pattern and practice of discrimination . . . affirmative and mandatory preliminary relief is required.”

    Page 83 of 92 pages.Affiant's initials _________


    (pp 84-85)
    “a sickness within himself”

    The reasonable accommodation process has not been started.

    Ed. Note: That process presumes compliance with other rules, does not serve as pale substitute, contrary to the TACOM and MSPB position.

    The book, Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life, 5th edition [Scott, Foresman & Co, 1976], by [Prof. James C.] Coleman, at 632 states, “As used in the present context prejudice refers to any attitude toward other individuals or groups that is based on inadequate and selective sources of information, while discrimination refers to overt acts that unjustly deny equal status or opportunity to persons on the basis of their membership in certain groups. Usually, of course, prejudice and discrimination go together.” In Psychology for Better Living [(New York: John Wiley, 5th ed., 1965)], Dr. [Lyle] Tussing at 474 refers to “Social prejudice” “as a kind of sickness” with “a number of negative aspects” including “that the prejudiced person has a sickness within himself.”

    At 120, Dr. Tussing notes that “Prejudiced people make up their minds about something or someone before they have any evidence.” He advises that “An individual who finds that he possesses a number of prejudices should make every effort to get rid of them or he will find it impossible to think logically.” At 474, the “sickness within himself” in the prejudiced person exists by “a form of rationalization,” i.e., “When a person wants to support a prejudice, even though he is not conscious of this desire, he sees only the bad and unpleasant things about the people at whom his feeling is directed. This is a form of rationalization.” Prejudice “creates problems. . . .” At 475, Dr. Tussing correlates prejudice and “the stereotype concept” and “stereotype thinking.”

    Ed. Note: Example is the TACOM and MSPB refusal to allow review on merits.

    Discrimination involves “the curtailment of people's rights as human beings.” One aspect is that it “debases all those involved—the victims, those who victimize, and those who function as accessories by standing idly by.” See Coleman at 633. He notes that “The physically handicapped are another group that suffer from discrimination.” He notes that prejudice has been “notoriously easy to rationalize. . . ,” even though “we look at the maiming of others—both psychologically and physically—'with disgust and horror' . . . .” Prejudices “come to be built in systematic ways . . . .”

    The parallel with functional and organic mental disorders is clear. Apathy and indifference to others as typical of schizophrenics is evident in prejudice. In schizophrenia, “clarity of thought is lost in the confusion.”

    Ed. Note: This is a classic smoker symptom.

    That fact provides insight on prejudice. In schizophrenia, “simple cases are marked by . . . scarcity of acute psychotic symptoms,” as is likewise true with prejudice. Schizophrenia includes “blunted” aspects, as does prejudice. The “fragmentary” and “world of fantasy” aspects are also notorious. Prejudice involves emphasis on “trivialities” or other disproportionate aspects, like schizophrenia. “In schizophrenia, reality orientation is especially weak.” A supposed “threatening reality” may be a cause.

    Ed. Note: Example is noted as long ago as 1845.

    Prejudice has historically and notoriously been “justified” by claims of “threatening reality” of alleged behavior by the victims of prejudice. The paranoid aspects of prejudiced behavior also reflect “a sickness within.” Dr. Tussing at 345 indicates that “those individuals who are psychotic . . . have very little insight into their own conditions.” No doubt—both the psychotic and the prejudiced person have “a sickness within himself.”

    Page 86 of ____92___ pages.Affiant's initials _________


    (pp 87-92)