Leroy J. Pletten,
Petitioner,
v. Docket No. 01994351
CATS #: AFBVFO9902J0630
Kenneth W. Starr,
Louis Caldera, et al.,
Agency/Respondents.
_________________________________/
The bottom line is that the immediate ultimate issue, Kenneth Starr's misconduct, conflict of interest, taking a tobacco lobby position contrary to law and his duty as a federal employee, has not been adjudicated. Nor the undisputed fact that his lying to the Supreme Court about the facts and law had an adverse impact. Nor his role in the undisputed bribery of the Sixth Circuit judges (James Ryan, et al.) to induce them to fabricate that I filed to disability retire myself, so as to obscure the issue that I am a federal employee, not having received a 5 USC § 7513.(b) notice of charges (condition precedent to a removal). The agency offers no affidavit or testimony to prove its mere allegations, which are NOT evidence. Deborah Eyer is offering merely hearsay at best, unsigned sarcastic hearsay! Please strike from the record the material on that basis.
Let's take yet another look at what really happened. In 1909, Michigan by law, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216 banned cigarettes. 29 USC § 651 et seq., 29 CFR § 1910.1000, and the preceding common law, alluded to by the Surgeon General in 1964, banned their emissions. 32 CFR § 203 banned them from having an adverse impact on anyone in the Department of Defense. Army Regulation 1-8 banned them likewise in the Army. Federal hiring criteria and vast case law banned hiring persons (e.g., smokers) posing a danger to themselves, others, and property, e.g., by smoker-caused fires. Federal qualifications rules and my job description set my job requirements and qualifications. Others are not subjected to disregard of law, rules, job description, qualifications requirements of record, etc.
The bottom line is that during my entire tenure, cigarettes were/are never legal in the State of Michigan. They were certainly never a job qualifications requirement of my job, the sole claim that the agency has ever purported to constitute even a retroactive basis for the 1979 decision to terminate me. (That decision came about in retaliation for my reporting the violations).
In late 1978, I reported about ten cigarette related violations to the Inspector General. For example, the agency was allowing smokers to retire on total disability even though the rule forbad same with respect to "vicious habits." The Army in 1898 knew not to hire smokers, as referenced in Austin v State, 48 SW 305 (1898) affirmed 179 US 343 (1900). The condition precedent for hiring them, non-dangerousness to self, not having been met, letting them retire due to the "vicious habit" constituted unlawful misuse of taxpayer funds.
The chronology of events that the agency forwarded is knowingly incomplete and malicious. It starts in mid 1979! And it disregards the basic condition precedent fact that all the doctor's notes must be read IN THE CONTEXT of the rule of law and qualifications requirements, not apart from them! They are referring to conduct, emissions, specifically forbidden to even exist (for example, nooses threatening blacks on premises are forbidden; doctors' notes objecting to them do not mean the person is to be fired, instead the perpetrators are to be controlled. Eyer knows this, that is why her vicious, malicious statements are not under oath.) She knows she is committing a felony, making false and misleading claims in violation of 18 USC § 1001 and § 1961, and facing many years in prison, that is why she is refusing to let me have an investigation and hearing like others get.
Eyer's fraudulent chronology clearly refuses to admit up-front what EEOC has previously noted (in its 23 Feb 1982 decision, Dockets 01.80.0273 et al.) that the agency was told in January 1980 by its own Appellate Review Agency (USACARA) to obey the rules. As Emily Bacon, Edward Hoover, etc., were enraged when I sought USACARA review, and even more so when USACARA ruled in my favor, they summarily had me removed and forced off-post without advance notice. I expressly deny that there was advance notice of charges of any misconduct by me whatsoever, or that any have ever been filed!
The hearsay paper from Deborah Eyer falsely alleges procedural compliance. There was none. No advance notice of charges. No progressive discipline. Simply arbitrary firing for winning a USACARA Report. There was no procedural compliance whatsoever. The agency provides none, and never has! No charges of misconduct whatsoever by me!
In addition, the agency deliberately violated its own rules, e.g., TACOM-Regulation 600-5.14-27 et seq. which specifically bans forced leave of the type referred to by Eyer. Eyer is a liar, knowing the claim is false, that is why she provides no affidavit in support.
EEOC's 23 Feb 1982 decision, Dockets 01.80.0273 etc., clearly shows that the agency knew it was violating the subject matter laws and rules, and knew it would lose on review. That is why it refused me access to the EEOC review process of 29 CFR § 1613 (now 1614) in February 1980, continuing to present, with specific intent to refuse me review of its then intended violations.
I am not receiving a disability retirement from the Office of Personnel Management. None of the many conditions precedent for it exist. (Example: a person is not married, if none of the conditions precedent exist, no matter how much someone might pretend to the contrary). OPM sent a detailed list of the unmet conditions precedent, which I incorporate by reference from the case file. I admit that it is undisputed that Carma Averhart and Thomas Alef were offered bribes (promised promotions, as they deemed me a competitor for promotion) to file an application for same for me, but fortunately OPM rejected it (on my request) as having no basis! I sought EEOC system review of the agency misconduct in having filed it, and bribing the coworkers to do so, however, since February 1980, the agency has refused to allow review on the merits. So my allegation that they were bribed is undisputed. It was only AFTER OPM rejected the Averhart-Alef filing of the application, that Bacon, Markman, etc., in desperation, bribed the Sixth Circuit judges named in the record, to pretend that I filed! I once again sought EEOC system review (counseling investigation, hearing) of that ex parte contact with and bribery of the judges. (Others are not subjected to false claims of having filed a disability retirement application, nor to ex parte contact with judges). Again,
the agency refuses to allow review (counseling, investigation, hearing). So bribery of the judges is undisputed.
Eyer pretends I am seeking reassignment! She knows better. She knows the agency placed advertisements in local media for outside hiring. As the agency pretends it fired me, though citing no 5 USC § 7513 notice, I am allowed to take the agency at its word, and respond to its ads! Eyer is a liar, pretending that that is a reassignment issue. She knows better.
The dismissal of my allegations fails once you note that the condition precedent for removal is missing. No matter how sarcastic the anonymous agency writer is, the law is clear, the Agency must show having met the condition precedent, a 5 USC § 7513 30 days advance written notice of charges. No such notice exists, and that is the key controlling fact that "necessarily renders all of the other facts immaterial." Celotex Corp v Catrett, 477 US 317, 323; 106 S Ct 2548; 91 L Ed 2d 265 (1986). Agency sarcasm and disrespect for EEOC cannot annul that simple condition precedent-based rule of law!
The list of litigations by Eyer is knowingly false, incomplete, and misleading, again subjecting her to many years in prison for violation of 18 USC § 1001. Eyer is well aware, let's repeat, of the 23 Feb 1982 EEOC decision showing the agency refusing me access to review in the 29 CFR § 1613 review system, February 1980 on. 29 CFR § 1613.403 mandates agency respect for my forum choice, EEOC. Eyer's recitation of only other matters is conclusive and dispositive that the 23 Feb 1982 EEOC decision is correct, undisputed, and res judicata in my favor. Review as I sought it has not begun.
The agency is the abuser of process. EEOC has already established this in its 23 Feb 1982 decision, showing denial of review in the 29 CFR § 1613 forum. Significantly, Eyer dares not dispute that!! She knows EEOC review was refused on my issues, including procedural ones, forced leave, sick leave, etc. I am in a straightforward manner, despite malicious agency opposition, simply trying to get review to begin as all other employees get without further ado. If the agency had simply obeyed EEOC's processing rules at the time, no further appeals would have been filed by me. A USACARA Examiner would undoubtedly have ruled for me, as in January 1980, as EEOC's 23 Feb 1982 EEOC alludes to.
The agency must itself obey the laws. Case law e.g., Service v Dulles, 354 US 363; 77 S Ct 1152; 1 L Ed 2d 1403 (1957) and Glus v Eastern District Terminal, 359 US 231, 232; 79 S Ct 760, 762; 3 L Ed 2d 770, 772 (1959), makes clear that a party, here, the agency, cannot itself commit wrongdoing, then complain of the other party's defense reactions. The agency cannot have the benefit of rules and principles favorable to it, while ignoring the conditions precedents it is to obey. Precedents show that no adjudicator should aid such a misconduct-committing party, e.g., BTC v Norton CMC, 25 F Supp 968, 969 ([DWD Ky] 1938); and Buckman v HMA, 190 Or 154; 223 P2d 172, 175 (1950). "No one may take advantage of his own wrong," Stephenson v Golden, 279 Mich 710, 737; 276 NW 848 (1938). As the agency cannot show the condition precedent, an advance removal notice, it resorts to sarcasm! Please take that as a confession of its wrongdoing.
I am not removed. Example: a person is not divorced, if the conditions precedent doesn't exist, no matter how much someone might pretend to the contrary, no matter how much time goes by, no matter how many judges are bribed! When a condition precedent does not exist, it does not exist!! Period.
I attach an affidavit in support. Significantly, the opponents DIDN'T, as they correctly anticipate prosecution if they lie under oath! Starr, Eyer, etc., know that honoring even legitimately obtained court decisions only applies if I had had both (a) "a full and fair opportunity" for me to have presented my case, and (b) prior "adverse findings," U.S. v Utah Construction & Mining Co, 384 US 394, 422; 86 S Ct 1545, 1560; 16 L Ed 2d 642 (1966). (No court found a 5 USC § 7513 notice!) As the agency had refused me the EEO forum I had chosen, EEO review on merits never began, the agency committed fraud on the court, and bribed deciding judges, it is clear that the agency cannot show compliance with either Utah criterion!! No "full and fair opportunity" for me to present my case on merits in my chosen forum has even begun. Starr knows he helped obstruct such review from even beginning. Wherefore he files no affidavit.
I incorporate by reference the investigation report, hearing transcript, EEOC Administrative Judge report, in my favor. They show all my allegations undisputed by evidence: the agency's law and hiring violations; no OPM disability retirement; no valid forced leave; no valid removal, no conditions precedent
met; Sixth Circuit Judges including James Ryan admitting taking bribes as alleged; attorneys Stephen Markman, Kathleen Nesi, Roy Hayes, Gary Maveal, Emily Bacon, admitting roles in the bribery, knowing that they were obstructing justice, denying me review in my chosen 29 CFR § 1613.403 forum (EEOC). Starr admitted his conflict of interest, taking the tobacco company position while he was still on federal rolls, his aiding and abetting the bribery and obstruction of justice, etc. Etc., etc.
Oops, my mistake, I keep forgetting that I am the only federal employee denied an investigation and hearing for now nearly 20 years! But you get the idea. On investigation and hearing, these named criminals and their accessories will foreseeably admit these allegations, crimes, and more, that is why they fear to let me have review like others. The anonymous agency writer knows that my allegations are true, not "spurious." And the anonymous writer clearly realizes that if review of Starr's misconduct and conflict of interest is allowed, the first thing the investigator or EEOC Administrative Judge will want to see is the Celotex condition precedent paperwork, the non-existent charges. The real truth is, the agency has a genuine terror of an investigation and hearing!
WHEREFORE, please reverse and remand for normal investigation and hearing. Alternatively, as the time limit for the agency to be allowed to file input long ago expired (let's say, February 1980 when it refused me access to EEOC review), please enter a default decision in my favor, stating that all my allegations are sustained, and all relief sought (whether the counselor recorded it or not), is hereby granted.
Respectfully,
Leroy J. Pletten
Leroy J. Pletten
Appellant
8401 18 Mile Road #29
Sterling Heights MI 48313-3042
(810) 739-8343
Enclsoure: Affidavit
Copy furnished: Agency
Leroy J. Pletten,
Petitioner,
v. Docket No. 01994351
CATS #: AFBVFO9902J0630
Kenneth W. Starr,
Louis Caldera, et al.,
Agency/Respondents.
_________________________________/
STATE OF MICHIGAN )
)SS
COUNTY OF MACOMB)
Petitioner Leroy J. Pletten, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that his allegations in his Reply to Agency Opposition to Appeal are true and correct; no contrary affidavit or testimony has been received; and therefore he deems his position undisputed, uncontested by "evidence" (as distinct from "argument" which is all that the agency has served on him) as the term is used in law, hence, to be accepted as such pursuant to case law, e.g., Ceja v U.S., 710 F2d 812 (CA Fed, 1983).
Respectfully,
Leroy J. Pletten
Leroy J. Pletten, Appellant
8401 18 Mile Road #29
Sterling Heights MI 48313-3042
(810) 739-8343
STATE OF MICHIGAN )
)ss
COUNTY OF MACOMB)
This document was acknowledged and signed by Leroy J. Pletten before me on August 18, 1999.
Janice A. Olszewski
Janice A. Olszewski, Notary Public
County of Macomb, Michigan
My Commission expires: 11-23-2001
| Appellant's 19 Nov 1976 Appointment |
| The 7 Jan 1992 Attempt To Get Review to Begin | The 3 Nov 1992 Attempt To Get Review to Begin |
Citing Violation of Due Process: NO NOTICE OF CHARGES |
Being Obstructed 1991-1996: Citing Legal Principles With Respect To Some of The Crimes Being Aided and Abetted |
for Attorneys Being Violated And Attempting To Get Review To Begin After Being Obstructed 1991-1996 |
Citing Starr's Apparent Coverup of Falsehood In Another Case and My Attempting to Get Review To Begin After Being Obstructed 1991-1998 |
Review Pursuant to the 1991 Agency Settlement To Do So |
To Agency Refusal to Allow Review on Merits |
|
|
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.
"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..
You can easily verify the lack of notice. Cite the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC § 552. Request a copy of the notice of charges (misconduct, malperformance, etc., warranting disciplinary removal) citing the rules, qualifications requirements, and/or performance standards involved, incidents, dates, witnesses, etc., all 30 days prior to ordering me off the premises. When you get a denial letter, or no response, you will have verified my claim. Of course, when there is no notice, legally the person is on the rolls. Analogy: when there is no divorce decree, there is no divorce, no matter how many years have transpired!