Did Our President Threaten My Life For Serving In The Air Force?

… Internet. Because of the serious problems created for… me by the government I defended in the Vietnam War, I had reason to use the President’s White House e-mail system several times. The results are puzzling, and I do not know whether to consider the reply I received through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to be a serious misinterpretation of my messages or a death threat. To a non-veteran, whose information is limited to that disseminated by the mass media, the latter might seem implausible. However, many documents I have collected over the years during appeals and lawsuits indicate that veterans of the Vietnam War and subsequent conflicts are perishing in incredibly large numbers decades before reaching the average national life expectancy of an American male.

What someone on President Obama’s White House staff did was to report me as suicidal to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs Suicide Hotline, whose administrator wrote me a letter indicating that this report had been made and that the agency had not been able to reach me by telephone. A number was provided for me to call if I wished.

Because my complaint could well have been interpreted to suggest that federal personnel had been attempting to kill veterans to save the trillion or more dollars it owes us for benefits but did not imply that I would help them by doing the job myself, I immediately realized that the message might well amount to a veiled threat on my life. On the one hand, federal agencies have been admittedly scanning vast amounts of personnel communications of millions of Americans without the knowledge or consent of the parties involved, and one crude form of scanning includes searches for keywords without any attempt to determine the context in which the keywords are used. While one of the messages I sent included a commonly cited estimate of the numbers of war veterans who are committing suicide every day, it could well be that the word had tripped an automatic search engine seeking the word suicide, and an automated alarm was sent to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs without anyone having read the message, not even the person who signed the letter mailed to me.

On the other hand, my complaint included the accusation that the unnaturally large number of veterans who have died long before expected, based on statistics and the average life expectancy of an American male, was known to and intended by federal civil servants employed by such agencies as the U.S. Departments of Labor and Veterans’ Affairs, U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Merit System Protection Board, Office of Personnel Management, and various federal department and agencies employing preference-eligible veterans at percentages significantly lower than the percentages of such veterans in the national workforce. Clearly, veterans facing discrimination severe enough to keep them unemployed for long periods of time or making them frequently change jobs will eventually become destitute, homeless, and dead long before they would have died if they had not served in the armed forces. In letters to Attorney General Eric Holder, I had demanded an investigation of deliberate blacklisting of veterans by federal agencies and their contractors and the discriminatory practices designed to assist employers in breaking the laws requiring special consideration of certain war veterans who apply for vacancies and prohibiting discrimination against such veterans. In the event that the investigation reveals discriminatory practices responsible for the deaths of thousands of veterans, which it probably would, the federal employees responsible should be prosecuted for capital crimes, no matter how long ago these crimes were committed.

In this case, my pursuit of justice for myself and other veterans may make me a target for rapid elimination. Does the message sent to me by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs indicate that attempting to bring to justice the scofflaws in government whose actions have promoted homelessness and the early demise of so many veterans is a suicidal act? Is it a threat to eliminate me if I persist?

During the 20th century, some of the gravest acts of mass murder in world history have been committed by withdrawing the means to survive from the victims. The most common of such methods is starvation, but failure to treat diseases, exposure to the elements during the cold seasons, and various psychological torments have also been effective in bringing about deaths of many victims. The greatest single act of this kind of mass murder was committed in

China during the Great Leap Forward. Only approximations of the numbers of victims are possible, but estimates of 60,000,000 are common. In this case, the method of murder used to eliminate large segments of the rural population was confiscation of the food supplies for use in the cities, where a frantic industrialization was taking place, and letting the unwanted small farmers starve slowly during the winters. The depopulated land was to be used for the development of collective farms, which were a trademark of Communism in every country they conquered.

Josef Stalin had already pioneered the use a similar method of mass murder in The Ukraine between about 1930 and 1933. The estimates of the number of victims who perished together with their entire families is generally agreed upon to have been at least 7,000,000. The establishment of collective farms on the land was in progress at the time, and agriculture in The Ukraine, where enough grain had formerly been grown to feed most of

Europe, has never recovered from the extermination of the skilled farmers and their replacement with commune laborers led by Communist ideologues.

Better known in the

United States are the forced labor and concentration camps established by the Nazis in the countries they had conquered early in the Second World War. The survivors of these camps liberated by American soldiers resembled living skeletons, attesting to the ravages to the body that starvation produces. However, it must be remembered that a great many inmates of these camps perished before their bodies had been reduced to the state of the survivors. Many otherwise healthy looking inmates had died of cold, exposure, and various contagious diseases not long after their admission to the camps. Only the healthiest of the people entering the camps managed to live long enough to be reduced to the state of emaciation shown in the films taken by the liberators. Certainly, the fact that unwanted minorities can be eliminated or significantly reduced in numbers by systematically depriving them of food, clothing, and shelter is not unknown to American government officials.

My own experiences as a combat veteran of the Vietnam War illustrate very well the intentions of federal civil servants toward veterans. Mine is a special case because I have a successful career as a scientist behind me while employed in foreign countries by foreign national and international employers. Mine is better documented than other case histories of veterans from the

Vietnam Era and later because I filed appeals and lawsuits, which contain the evidence in the case files. It has been suggested to me that my case may have been the result of my unknowingly offending some powerful government oligarch, but I reject this possibility because reports by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an agency of Congress, and Congressional Committees indicate that very large numbers of healthy and well motivated veterans have been subjected to financial ruin and a lifetime of perennial impoverishment due to the same employment discrimination that I have so frequently experienced. The conclusion is that my case is not fundamentally different that many veterans who have already died from the treatment given them at the hands of their own government. The efforts to destroy me as a person for serving in the Vietnam War have just been more extreme than most and are better documented.

Even after leaving out most of the sordid details, the treatment I received at the hands of the government I served in Vietnam should make it clear to anyone that service in the United States armed forces since the early 1960s could ruin a person’s life more than any other single act short of a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment. The odds of being killed or wounded in battle were relatively low while the war was going on, even for those actually engaged in combat, but the likelihood of coming to grief after returning to the United States have apparently been considerably greater.

Because Americans have been repeatedly told that their country is the land of liberty, they can seldom comprehend the situation I face. Many people have suggested that I am on some kind of quest or am trying to prove myself right and am therefore abandoning my many opportunities to engage in a public conflict with the government. Veterans with grave financial problems through no fault of their own are told to “get on with their lives.” What persons who have not yet encountered the ugly face of the

United States government in their own lives cannot comprehend the fact that persons in groups facing aggravated discrimination cannot get on with their lives because the government blocks them at every turn. During the 25 years I successfully pursued my career in

Europe and

South America, I could apply for grants or employment with a good chance of being accepted, in spite of the legal barriers against foreigners being given certain jobs and the fact that I routinely had to conduct business in languages other than English. When I apply for any grant, job, or contract in the

United States, I can expect that the person who receives my application will soon be on the phone with an employee of the United States Forest Service, who will make sure that my application is not approved. Clearly, it is the government that is on a quest to destroy the lives of as many veterans as possible, apparently to save the money it owes veterans for the benefits they earned. Just as in the former Communist states, our government can make anyone its agent select into a non-person without prospects for any employment at all or even acceptance into education or job training programs.

Congressman Lane Evans investigated my situation and made my case an example of the vendetta against veterans being conducted by the civil servants in the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Unfortunately, the Mr. Evans left Congress a few months later because of his Parkinson’s disease, and Kaye Coles James, with whom his staff had negotiated, resigned as director of that agency at about the same time. She said as she left that the treatment of veterans was the “dirty little secret” of her agency.

My service in the United States Air Force began several months after I completed college as a distinguished graduate from the AFROTC program. After agreeing to give up a $300 uniform allowance to which reserve officers are entitled, I received a regular Air Force commission. About a year later, I had earned my pilot wings and set out for my first assignment as a troop carrier co-pilot flying out of

Okinawa mainly to bases in

Vietnam and neighboring countries in

Southeast Asia. Before completing this assignment 18 months later, I had flown flare-drop missions over

North Vietnam and eastern

Laos and dropped toys and propaganda leaflets over

North Vietnam during a Christmas bombing pause. Several hundred hours of the flight time I had logged was classified as combat time.

My next assignment, for which I had volunteered, was as a forward air controller in

South Vietnam. My job satisfaction became very great after I began flying missions over the Ho Chi Minh Trail in

Laos and directing air strikes on trucks loaded down with arms and ammunition, which the North Vietnamese would have used to kill my own countrymen and countless South Vietnamese civilians if they had reached the Communist units operating in the South. On the other hand, my satisfaction with the Air Force decreased rapidly because of its higher echelon structure, which had reduced its generals’ responsibilities to conveying messages implementing a micromanaged war from afar by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s “whiz kids,” who obviously were placing us a position from which we could never end the war-making capability of the Communists, no matter how many battles our forces won. His only strategy was to impress on the Communist leadership that they could not defeat us, leading them to give up the war in exchange for a negotiable amount of foreign aid. When they persisted fighting in spite of the fact that his computers were telling him that they could not win, McNamara ran out of ideas.

I extended my tour of duty twice so that I would be discharged as soon as I returned home to the

United States. If asked, I would have stayed longer in Vietnam, but I did not want to serve in any non-combat role in an organization where I would have to associate daily with those officers making the service a career and expending their greatest efforts to “get their tickets punched,” a term used derisively to depict the voluntary transfer from one assignment to another in pursuit of promotion and career advancement. Each assignment was assumed to provide some certification of various kinds of qualification, each of which could presumably increase an officer’s promotion potential. In fact, such officers never remained in any assignment long enough to learn anything more than the importance of limiting their speech to “Yes, sir” and the fatal effect personal initiative can have on a career. This criticism certainly does not apply to the many fine pilots I served with, and it is not meant to reflect badly on any of those who managed to attain high rank later on. However, the prevalence of poor officers in key positions and their lack of combat experience, often resulting from their own reluctance to face personal danger, was a daily problem faced by all. It has been said that we had to fight the Vietnam War with one, or sometimes both hands tied behind our backs, and it was our own leadership on the ground, which did the tying.

Without exercising undue modesty, I can say that the skills I gained in combat permitted me to do my job very effectively, and in spite of repeated warnings that I would soon be shot down, the air strikes I directed on targets I found from January 1967 through November 1968 destroyed both enemy forces in the field and many truckloads of military supplies. At the end of 1967, I left the O-1 aircraft and checked out in the twin, pusher-puller engine aircraft designated the O-2, in which I flew over the southern part of

North Vietnam and eastern

Laos, while also flying missions in support of the besieged Marine base at Khe Sanh. Long before upgrading to the O-2 and moving north to the scenes of heavy fighting, I asked myself whether I should comply with the repeated demands of certain officers who outranked me to fly less aggressively so that I could have the option of making the Air Force a career or whether I should continue to make every effort to help my country win the war. My duty was clearly to do everything possible to find and destroy the artillery pieces that were firing across the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) at the Marine bases to the south and to seek out camouflaged enemy trucks and caches of supplies in Laos, thereby decreasing the amount of firepower which the North Vietnamese could bring against American and allied forces. The fact that I had to choose between doing my obvious duty in time of war and seeking a successful Air Force “career” immediately made the answer to my question obvious. After extending my tour of duty once for six months and receiving an extra month’s leave, I extended it again for about four months, right up until the time I had completed my military obligation to the Air Force and would be free to resign my commission.

On

November 10, 1968, the charter aircraft taking me back to the

United States landed at Norton Air Force Base in

San Bernardino,

California, and I was handed my honorable discharge and given a ticket to the city from which I had come almost five years earlier to begin my training as an Air Force pilot in

Texas. My flight records show that I had logged about 1897 hours of combat flying time, one of the highest totals of combat flying hours of anyone in the war. Less than two years later, I would return to Southeast Asia to fly as a civilian pilot in support of the war effort and write a book about my experiences flying in Cambodia during the final two years of America’s participation in the Southeast Asian war. Its title is The Phnom Penh Airlift, Confessions of a Pig Pilot, published by McFarlane.

As it turned out, my experiences in the

United States after my return from the war would be much more life threatening than those in

Vietnam, in spite of the fact that the enemy had expended hundreds of anti-aircraft artillery rounds unsuccessfully trying to shoot me down. A set of unique factors made it clear just how much the American political leadership and the civil service it controls want veterans dead to minimize the costs of providing the benefits we earned as servicemen during the Vietnam War and subsequent conflicts. Many civil servants gladly cooperated because they feared having to compete for promotions and retention with highly qualified and motivated veterans.

The first factor demonstrating the extent of the discrimination faced by veterans attempting to readjust to civilian life was my demonstrated academic ability. Very shortly after returning home, I took the Graduate Record Examination, the results of which are required for admission to most graduate schools. I first took the biology achievement test and scored above the 99th percentile level, a score placing me in the upper 1% of college graduates and graduating seniors who plan to apply for graduate school. Before the results had been sent to me, I attempted to apply to

Cornell

University, but when I mentioned that I had just returned from service in

Vietnam, I was asked by the graduate student admissions advisor for the Department of Systematics and Ecology not to apply.

At the time,

Cornell

University was reportedly receiving more money from the United States Federal Government than all other colleges and universities in the State of

New York, combined. Before I began my studies at a less well endowed but more veteran friendly university, I was asked to take the two Graduate Record Examination ability tests. My score in verbal ability was between the 98th and 99th percentile levels, placing me roughly in the upper 1% again. In quantitative ability, I scored at the 96th percentile level. I also took the New York State Regents War Service Scholarship examination and was awarded one of the scholarships. The university I attended offered me a teaching assistantship, giving me a part-time job preparing and instructing laboratory courses for undergraduates in exchange for a small salary and free tuition. As it turned out, I needed this financial support because the Veterans’ Administration (VA) delayed paying me the Veterans Education Assistance Allowance until after the final tuition payment was due. This practice had resulted in still uncounted numbers of veterans being expelled from their university courses for non-payment of the tuition and fees while the VA deliberately withheld the money it owed them by law.

My graduate courses went well, but I interrupted them for two year to fly as a civilian pilot in

Laos. I also prepared to undertake a research project on rice field ecology in

Southeast Asia, so I brought a microscope and chemicals for water analysis with me. In 1973, I received my Master of Science degree and had my dissertation accepted for publication in a leading European journal. My grades were 1 B and 11 As, before the beginning of the grade inflation later in the 1970s.

After learning that American academia was taking reprisal against veterans for having fought in the Vietnam War and assuming that the virulent hatred of veterans on some of the university campuses would make it almost impossible for a veteran to find employment after earning a PhD, I returned to Southeast Asia to fly in support of the beleaguered Khmers, who had picked a bad time to come into the war on the side of the United States. While in

Southeast Asia, I began applying to graduate schools in

Europe and was accepted by the University of Hamburg, Germany.

Not long after traveling from

Phnom Penh to

Hamburg, my project for a doctoral dissertation in

Southeast Asia was approved, and I was sponsored by a German research institute under an international agreement for a one-year project in northeastern

Thailand. The project was conducted in 1975 and 1976, adding greatly to the available information about rice field ecology in the valley of the middle Mekong and also making me a witness to the misery that America’s precipitous retreat from its war caused for millions of people in Cambodia, South Vietnam, and Laos. Our government not only left millions of our allies to the mercy of bloodthirsty Communist forces, it is thought to have left behind hundreds of our pilots, who were probably still alive in captivity after 1973. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, records of the transfer of various American and allied prisoners to laboratories in Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union for use as guinea pigs in the testing of chemical and biological weapons and for detailed studies of the effects of atomic explosions on living human beings were found. Many pilots had been instructed in the use of the most modern weapon systems and electronic warfare equipment before being sent to

Vietnam, and when they fell into the hands of the North Vietnamese military forces, they were immediately transferred to prisons in the

Soviet Union, from which they never returned.

Leaving out the many details which demonstrated to me that the United States civil service had no intention of giving veterans any of the benefits the law granted us, it is sufficient to say that while I was completing my doctoral dissertation, the Civil Service Commission, now called the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, committed fraud to keep from having to consider me for any of the federal civil service jobs for which I was better qualified than any of the other applicants. The Comptroller General under Jimmy Carter had written a letter to Congress in 1977 demanding that the law be changed to eliminate veterans’ preference in order to permit the civil service to give preference to certain non-veterans. Congress refused to change the law, but the federal civil service implemented the changes it wanted illegally, making many federal hiring officials scofflaws with regard to veterans’ employment. The U.S. Department of Labor has also seen to it that federal contractors are given encouragement to discriminate against war veterans in hiring, as well. Without any legal basis for doing so, the Department of Labor classified only jobs paying less than $25,000 per year as “suitable for veterans,” and private employers have been encouraged not to announce vacancies for jobs paying more where veterans are likely to see them. During the early 1990s, the GAO reported that this policy had resulted in veterans being denied information on jobs for which they were well qualified, but the Department of Labor has failed to remedy the situation. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Labor was assigned by Congress the duties of investigating employment discrimination complaints filed by veterans and taking appropriate action where discrimination was detected. The means given the Secretary of Labor under the law to compel compliance included declaring state or private employers ineligible for federal contracts.

By late 1984, I had experienced enough outright fraud in the discriminatory practices employers had developed to deny Vietnam Era veterans jobs to file two lawsuits, one against the State University of New York, College of Brockport, and the other against the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. The lawsuit against the federal government was dismissed after being mishandled by the court for several years. Judge Thomas Platt kept the lawsuit from ever completing the discovery phase, thereby preventing me from introducing the available evidence.

The trail against the state university proceeded differently. After a transfer of venue granted to

New York

State, a judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed all complaints I had filed pursuant to veterans’ law. The courts had made up their own rule that only the Secretary of Labor would have standing to file a lawsuit in behalf of a veteran. The lawsuit went forward pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, however. I was offered a financial settlement, which I accepted under the condition that the university give me a signed admission that it had violated veterans’ laws governing federal contractors. The university complied because it was cleared that it was free to violate laws protecting the rights of veterans in view of the inaction of the Labor Department. With this statement in hand, my lawsuit was filed against the Secretary of Labor for failing to enforce the Vietnam Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act. In addition, I filed two other lawsuits against federal agencies. One was against the Environmental Protection Agency, which had committed fraud in at least two selections in order to deny me consideration for employment. At the time, this agency employed the lowest percentage of Vietnam Era veterans of all independent federal agencies. Only the Departments of State and Education employed lower percentages. The other was a second lawsuit against the Department of Labor for failing to investigate an employment discrimination complaint against

Cornell

University. I had applied for an announced vacancy at that university, and it had selected a non-veteran much less qualified, unless the fact that his father was a professor another richly endowed university can be considered a qualification.

In 1994, Congress passed the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, which specifically gave veterans the right to file discrimination lawsuits in their own behalf. The law was passed 20 years too late, and many veterans had perished homeless and destitute on the streets of American cities while being denied their day in court. It was not until 1998 that veterans were able to take legal action against federal agencies for breaking the law by denying them employment because they had served in the armed forces. Colleges and universities, which receive incredible amounts of money from the federal government while overcharging their students for the indoctrination they receive, have been among the most notorious scofflaws. Much has been written about the methods of discrimination used by American academia to take reprisal against those who have served the

United States in wars, but no politician is willing to do anything about it.

More recently, other federal contractors have begun denying veterans employment because they fear that the veterans might be called up by the reserves at some time in the future, making it difficult to replace them. Many veterans returning from

Iraq or

Afghanistan learned that they had been fired by their employers in their absence. This is illegal, but it is the veterans who face foreclosure on their homes while fighting lawsuits for eight to ten years at their own expense to regain their jobs. The government that sent them to fight simply looks the other way.

Veteran-hating elements in the Department of Justice denied my wife American citizenship because I chose to work as a scientist overseas rather than face the homelessness my own government envisioned for me. This required another six-year court battle, which the Department of Justice lost. My wife became an American citizen 18 years after our marriage, while she would have become a citizen after only three years without the requirement of a lawsuit if I had dodged the draft during the Vietnam War.

While this was going on, I performed a series of research projects in

Germany and

Brazil, sponsored by various foreign and international agencies. The results of my studies were published in two books and more than 65 shorter publications in refereed journals and books. By 1997, I mistakenly concluded that the controversies about the Vietnam War might have abated enough to allow a veteran to compete for a job.

In 1997, two United States Forest Service employees offered me $20,000 to withdraw from a federal civil service selection in

Alaska. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel confirmed the details of my complaint, and the Forest Service was forced to offer me similar employment at

Olympia,

Washington, as part of a settlement agreement. In hindsight, it is clear that the Special Counsel was interested only in allowing Forest Service personnel to escape felony prosecution for attempted theft of $20,000 earmarked for equipment purchases, bribery, and fraud in a federal civil service selection.

Leaving out the many sordid details related to government corruption, which are amply recorded in agency and court records, it is sufficient to say that it was clear that the Forest Service had hired a specialist in firing scientists from the Department of the Interior for the sole purpose of preparing plausible reasons for firing me before the end of the probationary year. Forest Service personnel then contacted agencies for the State of Washington and the United States Geological Survey, an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior, to make sure that I remained blacklisted for employment in the United States, not only for serving in the Vietnam War but also for becoming a whistleblower with regard to the illegal methods the civil service uses to exclude veterans from all but the most menial and low-paying positions.

The Veterans’ Employment and Training Service of the U.S. Department of Labor (VETS) not only fails to provide veterans with either employment or training, it automatically rejects every single complaint filed by a veteran, no matter how much evidence of discrimination the veteran provides. A few years ago, I learned that the annual budget of VETS was $219,000,000, a sum which has undoubtedly been considerably increased since the large number of suicides among our war veterans came to the public attention.

VETS provides grants to state employment services, which are supposed to be used exclusively for directing veterans to suitable jobs and careers. A request pursuant to the Washington State public disclosure act made about ten year ago yielded me information that Washington was receiving grants of almost $4,000,000 annually to pay the salary of veterans’ employment specialists. These grants are paid each year no matter how shabby the records of the employment services are. Congress, however, was negligent in permitting the personnel employed as veterans’ employment specialists to perform other jobs for the state agencies when they are not helping veterans. Using the situation in

Washington

State as an example, it is clear that these federally paid employees have no time to assist veterans because they are given so much other work. Several years ago, while

Washington was threatened by a budget crisis, Governor Christine Gregoire dismissed the state-paid employees from the Employment Security Department to save money and simply turned all of the work over to the veterans’ employment specialists. To an ordinary citizen, this might be considered theft of funds, but no higher authority will take the trouble to prosecute highly placed politicians these days, so the practice is tacitly approved. When I asked to see the veterans employment specialist at the Olympia office of the Employment Security Department at the time, he told me that he had been assigned to manage the office by himself, so he had no time to assist veterans. How many veterans had to sleep on the street in the state did not seem to matter. Christine Gregoire’s goal was balancing the budget. Servicemen gave their lives on the battlefield; now it was time for some of the veterans to risk their lives again, impoverished on the streets of

Washington’s cities.

Since returning to the United States in 1998 on the false promise of a job with the United States Forest Service, I have encountered a whole series of discriminatory procedures designed to keep veterans impoverished enough to kill them off in large numbers. Veterans can file complaints of employment discrimination by federal agencies with VETS, which almost always dismisses the complaints by return mail. Another agency of the Department of Labor, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, has the duty of investigating complaints of discrimination from veterans against federal contractors. Its record of helping veterans is equally dismal. Between 2004 and 2007, my employment applications were filed for at least 99 vacancies with the U.S. Geological Survey, an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior. In the great majority of these selections, my examination score had been the highest or tied for the highest, even though I had not received any veterans’ preference points for most of them. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management had decided arbitrarily, capriciously, and probably illegally, that points need not be given if a veteran applies under what are called “merit promotion” rules. At least 9 of my applications, and probably as many as 20, were simply removed by the agency from consideration without any examination score being recorded. Numerous rules were broken in the selection process, but only one violation was admitted to by Patrick Harvey, an investigator for VETS, who was assigned to open all of my complaints for investigation after they had been dismissed without investigation by the VETS office in

Olympia,

Washington. His remedy was for the U.S. Geological Survey in the region where the violation occurred to give me a letter of priority for the next selection. About a year later, I was told I could use this letter of priority for a new selection, but after I applied, my name was again illegally removed from consideration by an unidentified person. The Merit System Protection Board later ruled that a letter of priority is not a suitable remedy for refusal of an agency to permit a veteran to compete for a vacancy.

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel is also responsible for assisting veterans whose preference rights have been violated by federal agencies. It has the additional responsibility of protecting whistleblowers from reprisal. The Merit System Protection Board had already acknowledged my status as a whistleblower, but the Special Counsel dismissed my complaint filed pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection Act on the grounds that VETS had already investigated my complaint and found that the agency had not violated my rights as a veteran, except in one case. The conclusion by the Special Counsel is worse than absurd because VETS has neither the legal right nor the competence to investigate any complaint filed pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection Act, which holds agencies to much higher standards than veterans’ laws do. Shortly after one of my complaints was filed with his agency, Special Counsel Scott Bloch had his offices raided by the FBI as part of the investigation of felonies he had been accused of. According to newspaper reports, the FBI had enough evidence to send him to federal prison, but the Justice Department allowed him a plea bargain, and he was permitted to plead guilty to a misdemeanor.

Without the assistance of any agency assigned the duty of providing legal support for veterans, I became involved in appeals before the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB). The first appeal was filed to contest my dismissal by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, one working day before the completion of my probationary year. Two Forest Service witnesses committed perjury and were caught at it under cross-examination. Administrative Law Judge Sidney Farcy allowed them to do this without objection on the grounds that the MSPB is an executive administrative agency and not a criminal court, giving him no authority to do anything about witnesses who lie under oath at his hearings. The MSPB is supposed to resolve whistleblower cases within 120 days, but my appeal dragged on for about 3 years, and its review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took another year. Meanwhile, the Forest Service contacted prospective employers to make sure that I would never be employed in the

United States again. In an e-mail placed in the file of the Special Counsel, Tricia Wurtz, one of the Forest Service Employees who offered me the $20,000 bribe to withdraw from the Forest Service selection in Alaska, stated that I was “dishonest” for trying to get evidence that I was being paid to remove myself from the list of applicants for a federal civil service job. She assumed that misappropriating $20,000 from public funds, bribery, extortion, and fraud in a federal selection are all activities of honest people. This gives excellent insight into the mindset of federal employees engaged in scientific research.

The decision by Sidney Farcy in this appeal is an excellent example of fraud, which is not even thinly disguised. In an extremely long decision, filled with errors in immaterial facts, his only two examples of my “unsatisfactory performance” involved a project that was not even scheduled to begin until six months after I was fired. The first of these was my alleged failure to have reached agreements with a scientist in

Alaska for collecting and examining salmon carcasses to determine which insects consume them. The scientist with whom this agreement was to be made had been designated by my supervisor, and he had testified by conference call from

Alaska at the hearing before Mr. Farcy. He confirmed that the agreement had been made by January, 1998, for the project scheduled to begin in November, 1999, about six months after I was fired. My supervisor testified that he had known about this agreement since January, 1998. The conclusion that this agreement had not been made rested only on a clearly false statement first made in Mr. Farcy’s decision.

The second example was fully absurd. During the testimony, it had been attested to by all parties that I had told my supervisor in November, 1998, about the lack of laboratory space and a microscope needed to examine the salmon carcasses for insects after the beginning of the project planned to begin in November, 1999. A sum of $30,000 had been appropriated to purchase the equipment I needed, and a moderately-priced microscope had been selected for about 25% of this amount. However, Deanna Stouder, the person hired to prepare a case for firing me had cancelled all my equipment purchases when she transferred to the Forest Service in August, 1998, and the newly hatched insects were impossible to identify, and often even to see, without a microscope. Mr. Farcy implied in his decision that it was up to me to find a way to identify and count microscopic organisms without using a microscope. Whether it was required for me to invent a substitute for the wheel he did not say.

In an appeal pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection Act, as well as the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, the burden of proof is on the agency. In the case of whistleblower appeals, the level of evidence required of agencies is “clear and convincing,” the highest standard of proof in a civil lawsuit. The agency had proven nothing, except that its witnesses were willing to commit perjury as long as the MSPB permits them to do so with impunity. At this point, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a private non-profit organization, offered to provide me with counsel and prepare a petition for review of the decision by the MSPB.

On the face of the evidence, there was no possibility that Mr. Farcy’s decision could be upheld. The standard of law had been violated, and the only two material “facts” had been invented by Mr. Farcy out of thin air. They had been contradicted by agency witnesses during the hearing and had never been alleged by the agency to be reasons for my dismissal. The MSPB took the only course open to it and simply refused to review the initial decisions. The lawyer for PEER said that any further attempts to review the decisions would be futile because the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had been hostile to whistleblowers and were setting precedents that directly contravened the stated intent of Congress when it passed the Whistleblower Protection Act. The Federal Circuit judges were also systematically stripping away the legal rights of veterans, which Congress had granted when it passed USERRA in 1994. I submitted an appeal pro se, that is, without a lawyer, and about a year after I filed the notice of appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the refusal of the MSPB to review the initial decision. The judges stated specifically that they had not reviewed the disputed factual issues, confining their opinion to the question of whether the MSPB would be legally obligated to review the fraudulent initial decision.

My next appeal to the MSPB involved roughly 49 hiring decisions by the U.S. Department of the Interior for vacancies at the U.S. Geological Survey. The complaints I filed with the office of VETS in

Seattle had been received and quickly dismissed for trivial reasons. In one case, the letter from VETS explained that the matter had been dismissed because the agency had failed to return the phone call from VETS. The appeal was filed pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA), and the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). As soon as the agency responded, VETS announced that all of my complaints would be reopened and investigated by Patrick Harvey, whose office was in

West Virginia. On my motion, the MSPB dismissed my appeal without prejudice for refilling as soon as the investigation by VETS had been completed.

After VETS issued its letter of dismissal with a finding of only one agency violation, the appeal was refiled with the MSPB and immediately split into two separate appeals, the first pursuant to the WPA, and the second pursuant to USERRA and VEOA. In hindsight, the tactical move by the administrative judge of the MSPB based in the Bay Area of California was designed to dispose of my strongest protection quickly before evidence could be produced showing unequivocally that my appeal should be heard pursuant to the WPA. The Bay Area had been a notorious hot spot of venomous attacks, both verbal and physical, against veterans returning from Vietnam, and employment discrimination against veterans was widely approved of by persons in that part of California with sufficient political connections to be appointed to high federal offices.

One appeal was filed by Administrative Judge Amy V. Dunning to adjudicate about 49 selections pursuant to the WPA. The investigation of the complaints had never been properly conducted because the results reported by VETS had been accepted by Office of Special Counsel as its only reason to dismiss all of my complaints filed pursuant to the WPA. As already stated, the problem is that VETS has neither authorization nor competence to investigate WPA complaints. The Special Counsel is required to investigate such complaints, but it had dismissed my complaints without even beginning an investigation, deferring to VETS, which is not authorized even to receive such complaints.

To succeed in finding some excuse, even a tenuous one, for dismissing all of my complaints, the MSPB must always focus primarily on violations of WPA. Both the veterans’ laws and the WPA place the burden of proof on the agency, but appeals based on veterans’ laws require the agency to produce only a preponderance of evidence, while a much higher level of proof is required for an agency to prevail in a whistleblower appeal. In layman’s terms, an agency can win an appeal pursuant to veterans’ laws if 51% of the evidence favors its arguments and only 49% favors the veteran. Only 51% gives an agency a preponderance of evidence. Of course, the administrative judge alone decides what constitutes 51% of the evidence, and judges who want to continue in their careers working for the federal government had better not create animosity among the leaders of the federal civil service by ruling that one of them violated the rights of a veteran.

To prevail in a whistleblower appeal, the law does not regard a preponderance of evidence by the agency to be sufficient. Clear and convincing evidence is approximately equivalent to the kind of proof necessary for a state to have an accused sentenced to execution in a criminal trial. In theory, if such evidence is not provided by an agency, the whistleblower must prevail and is entitled to full restitution of all losses caused him by the wrongful agency action. In spite of this, whistleblowers never prevail in appeals before the MSPB. The administrative judges want to continue their own careers in the civil service, and they witness every day the lengths that senior civil servants will go to take reprisal against those who suggest wrongdoing within their agencies. It therefore behooves an administrative judge to find a technicality for dismissing each appeal filed by a whistleblower. If forced to render a decision in favor of a whistleblower, an administrative judge must see to it that the agency is not compelled to enforce his decision. In other words, the system established by Congress to protect whistleblowers is fundamentally corrupt.

Because the Department of the Interior had no evidence favoring it at all in my appeals, it would have been difficult for the administrative judge to find any reason to rule that the agency had clear and convincing evidence in its favor. She therefore used the only trick available to her. In order for the MSPB to have jurisdiction over my appeal, it alleged that I must first prove that my status as a war veterans with preference rights was at least a contributing reason for the agency’s decision not to hire me. The trick was to hold a hearing quickly before the documentary evidence showing that the persons making the decisions not to hire me had constructive knowledge of my whistleblowing before and during my employment with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service.

Prior to the scheduled hearing of my appeal pursuant to the WPA, the process called discovery had to be completed. This involves the exchange of information between the parties to the appeal. Each party is obligated to provide all of its evidence to the other party, including all documents specifically requested and sworn testimony of witnesses answering specific questions. The MSPB alleged demanded evidence that the hiring officials for the U.S. Department of the Interior knew about my whistleblowing concerning the $20,000 bribe offer to induce me to withdraw from the selection by the Forest Service and an additional report I had written, which had previously been certified by the MSPB as a second protected disclosure. This report provided information demonstrating that a project to develop a method of estimating conditions in forest streams would fail because it did not specifically address the questions that the Forest Service was supposed to answer as a matter of law. The Forest Service was wasting at least $208,000 on this project, and in 2003, the person conducting the project reported the results to be “inconclusive,” meaning that it had failed.

Ms. Dunning did dismiss my appeal for lack of evidence that Department of the Interior personnel knew about my whistleblowing at the Department of Agriculture. The actions of the MSPB were in gross violation of proper judicial and administrative procedures, and if the matter had been handled correctly, the Department of the Interior should have faced sanctions for refusing to release any of the documents I had requested and failing to provide answers to my interrogatories given under oath. My motion to compel discovery before the hearing was denied for reasons that were blatantly false. One reason Ms. Dunning gave for denying my motion to force the agency to release the records, as required by law, was that I had failed to show her the documents that the Department of the Interior had already released when I submitted the motion. In fact, I could not release any such documents because the Department had not released even one of them by the time the motion was submitted.

To make a long, sordid story short, the information gained during the later hearing held pursuant to the veterans’ laws demonstrated the following series of events: 1) my former Forest Service supervisor, Peter Bisson, had contacted a selecting official for the U.S. Geological Survey at Fort Collins, Colorado, after I filed an application for a vacancy there in 2003 and earned the highest examination score of 100% without any veterans’ preference points being added to the score. The selecting official asked him a prohibited question which constituted a legal violation in the selection procedure, cited in 5 U.S.C. §2302 (b) (2), “Would you hire this person again?” Bisson did not respond to the question, and the selecting official said “Thank you,” and ended the conversation. This question is apparently a question equivalent to, “Is this person blacklisted?” An identical question appeared on

Washington

State interview forms. Because answering this question is prohibited, silence is to be construed as a “No.”

The law says that an agency is free to select any one of the top three applicants for a vacancy, arranged according to examination scores, unless one of the applicants is a veteran with preference rights. To pass over a veteran to select a less qualified non-veteran, the agency must apply for and be granted a waiver by the Office of Personnel Management after an open hearing, if such a hearing is requested by the veteran. To keep from having to hire me, the selecting official cancelled the selection. It was reopened several months later using an examination that was identical to the first one, or nearly so. This time, an unknown person entered the electronic file and changed my first graded answer on the examination, lowering my score to 98.64% and my place on the list from first to fifth. That this change was made is clear from the fact that the next question, an ungraded essay to show that the answer to the previous question was correct, demonstrated that I was entitled to the maximum number of examination points. My score should have been restored to 100%.

This was clearly a denial of selection due to the recommendation of the person responsible for taking reprisal against me for blowing the whistle at the Forest Service. However, this was only a minor infraction compared with the actions of Robert Szaro, the acting director of the agency I had worked for at the Forest Service during my four year appeal before the MSPB and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Shortly after Peter Bisson reported his phone conversation with the hiring official for the U.S. Geological Survey to Mr. Szaro, this senior official for the U.S. Department of Agriculture left his job to take over a senior position with the U.S. Geological Survey, where he personally blocked my selection for at least six vacancies, which he filled with non-veterans, many of whom lacked even the basic qualifications for the jobs.

After reviewing the records of the MSPB, I learned that whistleblowers and veterans never win an appeal. Even in the rare cases in which the MSPB orders the agency to give them some relief for the actions taken against them, agencies either refuse to comply with the MSPB’s orders or some limitation on the relief is imposed so the appellant must suffer great personal losses to obtain only the satisfaction of seeing the agency be declared guilty of an infraction far less serious than the ones they actually committed.

If the Special Counsel had made even the most cursory investigation, he would have obtained the documentary proof that the person refusing to permit the Department of the Interior to hire me because of my status as a veteran and as a whistleblower was one and the same person responsible for my appeal against his former employer. Any doubt about constructive knowledge by Department of the Interior personnel about my whistleblowing at the Department of Agriculture would have been removed. Similarly, if the MSPB had compelled discovery, the documentary proof of constructive knowledge would also have been obtained. That an ex parte agreement had been made to keep this proof out of my hands before my appeal pursuant to the WPA was expeditiously dismissed seems far more likely than not.

When I filed a petition for review with the MSPB, the initial decision was overturned, but the appeal was dismissed for another reason. The administrative judges surmised that the Special Counsel had never dismissed my complaint, so it ruled that jurisdiction of the MSPB was lacking because administrative remedies had not been exhausted. This was false because a document dismissing my complaint had been issued. However, the MSPB had adopted an electronic filing system, and there were no means provided for the submission of such forms before the hearing. Neither the counsel for the Department of the Interior nor Ms. Dunning had ever alleged that the Special Counsel had not issued a dismissal. Counsel for the Department of the Interior certainly knew the complaint had been formally dismissed because she had been sent a copy. More fraud!

The technicalities become more tangled because the dismissal that had been issued by the Special Counsel must be considered fraudulent. It alleged that the complaint pursuant to the WPA had been completed, relying only on the report from VETS, which lacks jurisdiction and competence to investigate any complaint pursuant to WPA.

Over the years, the MSPB had dismissed thousands of complaints filed by veterans pursuant to USERRA. The administrative judges insisted that the veteran is required to prove that prohibited personnel practices committed against him were motivated, at least in part, by animosity against veterans by the person who committed the prohibited practices. Just showing that the agency had violated the law was not enough. For this reason, my appeal filed pursuant to USERRA was also dismissed. Under these rulings, the only way to demonstrate agency liability for failing to hire a veteran who is best qualified for a particular vacancy by violating merit system procedures is to have the perpetrator’s motives determined by a certified mind reader. Such an absurdity is not demanded during any other kind of discrimination hearing.

For years, the United States Supreme Court has refused to hear any complaint brought pursuant to veterans’ laws by a veteran. In 2011, however, the Supreme Court reviewed a decision of a USERRA complaint, and by a 9 to 0 vote decided that virtually all of the tests and procedures that have been employed by the MSPB to assure that every veteran loses his or her appeal are illegal. Justice Scalia clarified the situation by stating that the procedures used in adjudicating complaints of employment discrimination against veterans must be fundamentally the same as those used in civil rights and age discrimination lawsuits. No mind-reading test need be imposed. Circumstantial evidence can be used to determine violations. In the case decided, the person making the decision to fire a reservist because of his military service had nothing against the armed forces or his service in it. The decision had been influenced by someone else who did not like co-workers with reserve obligations, and that was more than sufficient to demonstrate discrimination in a USERRA complaint.

VEOA demands relief for a veterans who files a complaint and it is demonstrated that the selection officials violated any law, rule, or procedure guaranteeing veterans their right to preference in public employment. My complaint filed pursuant to VEOA was also dismissed initially, in one case because Ms. Dunning decided that the hiring official did not know about the law he was breaking. That, in her opinion, made the selection legal. The many violations of VEOA were so obvious that the MSPB had to create another bizarre reason to dismiss the complaint on a technicality. Ms. Dunning’s decision was overturned on the grounds that the MSPB had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Although the complaints had been filed with VETS pursuant to both USERRA and VEOA, the administrative judges noted that Patrick Harvey, the investigator for VETS had failed to mention VEOA in his letters dismissing the complaints. A further technicality created by Mr. Harvey’s correspondence was the difficulty in establishing whether the filing of the appeal was timely. Mr. Harvey did not think it necessary to put dates on his letters.

Shortly after being wrongfully fired by the Forest Service in 1999, I began filing applications with agencies of the State of

Washington. I had not been hired for 12 vacancies for which I was clearly the most qualified applicant. They were vacancies demanding credentials in science, and I had continually appeared with the highest examination score on one certificate after another. No preference points were granted me, so if I had not been a veteran, my scores would not have been lower. I filed a lawsuit, but at the time the Attorney General for the State, Christine Gregoire, had managed to make

Washington the first state in the

Union to declare veterans’ preference unconstitutional. The records show that the judges committed one travesty of justice after another in more than 10 lawsuits filed by veterans who had been discriminated against by state agencies. The goal of the judges was to keep all complaints filed by veterans from being decided by jury trial, which is a basic civil right in the Constitutions of the

United States and the State of

Washington.

After the decisions had been rendered in each case, the Washington State Supreme Court refused to review them, allowing the decision of the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division 1 in

Seattle, to abolish the preference for veterans that had been considered just and legal from 1944 through 2001. Apparently, it was a goal of Ms. Gregoire to keep the proceedings from public view because she wanted to become Governor and did not want people think that she was condemning the veterans in her state to homelessness and an early death.

What is important to consider is that the State of

Washington spent more than $55,000 in legal fees just to see to it that I would never work for the state. Again, I obtained documentation of communication between Deanna Stouder, the person hired by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to prepare a case for firing me, and Dale Norton, a search committee chairman for the Washington Department of Ecology. That

Washington was receiving almost $4 million annually from the U.S. Department of Labor to provide special employment services to veterans and was then using much of it to cover the legal costs of making veterans remain unemployed was a gross misappropriation of funds. The information I received through

Washington’s public disclosure law also affirmed that the state had spent more than half a million dollars in legal fees to keep ten other veterans unemployed. The $55,000 it spent on my case kept me from being hired for jobs paying as little as about $28,000 per year.

Both the federal and state governments would have the public believe that veterans cannot be hired because all of us are stupid brutes with subnormal intelligence and a streak of laziness which prevents us from gaining the skills necessary for employment. Their spokesmen let the public know that few veterans even have the skills to earn a salary nearly as high as the $25,000 per year that the Department of Labor has set as a ceiling for their annual earnings. In discussing veterans’ employment, representatives of agencies never use the word veteran outside of the context, “poorly qualified veteran,” or “unqualified veteran.” In my administrative appeals and lawsuits, I have noted that I am always addressed as Mr. Heckman, even though documents in the case file show that I have earned a doctoral degree. Agency representatives are carefully addressed with the title “Doctor,” even when they have not earned any academic degree at all.

The facts tell a different story. During the hearing before the Merit System Protection Board during my appeals against the Department of the Interior, filed pursuant to USERRA and VEOA, agency witnesses discussed a considerable number of the 57 selections which were at issue during the appeal. The hearing was held about a year after the appeal of the same selections pursuant to the WPA was improperly dismissed. Another eight selections had been added to the appeal in the meantime. Of the successful non-veterans appointed to the vacancies through fraudulent manipulation of the selection process, more than half had not even earned a master’s degree. The majority had also failed to author or co-author a single scientific publication in a refereed journal. Research that produces publishable results is the work product of a scientist, and the fact that some of the persons appointed had already worked for federal agencies from 20 to 30 years made me wonder whether they had ever done any work at all for that period of time. Could an insurance salesman work for a private employer that long without ever having sold a single insurance policy? The lack of even a single publication attests to the fact that federal agencies have employed non-veterans for as long as 20 years without their having even one work product to show for it. Their salaries reached more than $155,000 per year without a requirement for them to do or produce anything. At the same time, a veteran whose publications number more than 75, including 10 books, cannot find any job at all simply because, as three

New York

State veterans’ employment specialists have told me, a former draft dodger would not feel comfortable working with a veteran.

A Vietnam War veteran, who had been involved in successful litigation against

Ohio

State

University and worked his way up to Vice-President for research at a leading state university reputed to be “veteran friendly,” submitted an affidavit for my appeal, which was rejected from the file by Ms. Dunning. He said that the positions being filled through the selections at issue in my appeal would require a PhD, considerable experience supervising other scientists in their research, and authorship of a large number of scientific publications in refereed journals and books. The fact that the Department of the Interior was filling these GS-15 positions with non-veterans lacking even the most basic qualifications for these jobs while rejecting well-qualified veterans exposes the big lie being propagated by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. It is the non-veterans being appointed who are the ones slipping into high paying jobs without the qualifications to perform their duties.

One of the excuses continually raised by the hiring officials was the suggestion that the jobs did not require competence in research but only the ability to get along with people from different backgrounds holding different values and beliefs. The successful appointment of one applicant was examined during cross-examination. He had attended graduate school for six years during the Vietnam War but flunked out without receiving so much as a master’s degree. He had held student draft deferments during the war for ten years. The hiring official explained that this person he had hired had had a “falling out with his professor.” The question then arose concerning why he was leaving his job at the Forest Service to work for the U.S. Department of the Interior. The answer was that he could not get along with his supervisor. So much for people skills of successful non-veterans!

A conclusion any sensible person would have made from the testimony during my appeals is that you have to know the right person to get a job as a scientist with the United States Department of the Interior. If you do, qualifications are irrelevant. The draft dodgers making the selection for this department and many other organizations in the federal government do not have any friends who are veterans, so a veteran will not be appointed. This practice not only contravenes the stated goal set by Congress for the federal civil service to preferentially hire veterans at all levels of responsibility, it is a direct violation of the law and involves multiple actions defined in the law as “prohibited personnel practices,” making the conclusion unavoidable that most of the people involved in personnel actions for the federal civil service are scofflaws.

The U.S. Department of Justice refused to provide me with documents showing the exact cost of my lawsuits filed against federal agencies. Its lawyers have gained a reputation for refusing such demands in violation of both the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. However, from the legal costs to the state of Washington for just one lawsuit and from estimated costs borne by the Merit System Protection Board for holding hearings for which agency witnesses were flown to Seattle from distant parts of the country and quartered in expensive hotels, it is clear that the United States Federal Government has spent at least between one and two million dollars just to keep me, one combat veteran of the Vietnam War, from ever holding a job in the United States.

Whether this is in the interests of the country is a question President Obama has not been willing to answer. Like his predecessors, he knows very well that the news media will cover up the real causes of the massive homelessness among veterans, which has persisted for decades, as well as the high rate of suicide by veterans and the absence of veterans from Congress, the universities, and positions of influence and responsibility in public life. From their actions, it is clear that agencies which supposedly exist to ease the transition of servicemen to civilian life abide by the unwritten rule that nobody in the United States, especially civil servants, are ever to be found guilty of discriminating against a veteran in any way, breaking any rule designed to protect veterans from employment discrimination, or bringing any veteran to grief by imposing poverty, public castigation, ridicule, or any other form of psychological torment on him. Since the Vietnam War, veterans have faced employment discrimination, denial of educational opportunities, vilification by the news and entertainment media, and violations of their fundamental civil rights when they appeal to administrative boards or the courts. Ever increasing numbers of veterans have faced death from destitution and deprivation as a result of their treatment. Members of Congress, especially hypocrites like Senator Patty Murray, have greatly increased appropriations for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs but permitted the funds to be used to greatly enrich lawyers who find new excuses for denying or delaying vital benefits to veterans until they have perished and saved the government the money which would have saved their lives. Similarly, non-veteran psychologists enrich themselves with the money the veterans should be receiving to treat their war wounds and permit them to afford a roof over their heads each night. If the truth were better known, the psychologists would be assigned to evaluate the mental health of the non-veteran employers, whose refusals to hire veterans due to jealousy, guilt for dodging the draft, or fear that a veteran might get their own jobs are at the root of the problems most veterans face.

Obviously, if a conspiracy to deny veterans employment, pensions, or essential medical treatment has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of veterans, trials for capital crimes would be called for. Many public figures who are presently or were formerly in high positions in government would be subject to trial and conviction for mass murder. Is this what someone on President Obama’s staff meant by classifying me as suicidal? If I persist in reporting the despicable and illegal acts committed against veterans, is he telling me that someone will kill me to shut me up? Is our government nothing but a well-endowed Mafia with sovereign immunity? The project I was falsely accused of not having prepared for sufficiently six months before it was scheduled to begin involved the examination of salmon carcasses. Symbolically, the Mafia uses a dead fish as its sign of reprisal against someone who breaks the omerta, the code of silence. A whistleblower is someone who breaks the omerta of our federal civil service. The symbolism is clear to me.

I am persisting in my appeals and lawsuits against our deadbeat government because it is the right thing to do. The general public is slowing becoming aware that the actions of the federal government are killing off our veterans at an alarming rate. Events can occur quickly, and the law and justice may triumph in the end, even though it appears to be a long shot now.

In any case, if my suicide is reported, the report is a lie. I would not do them that favor.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Authors Note ~~~~~ >>

German universities grantdoctorates in fields other than philosophy, so its degrees specified theacademic field. InGerman the degree is called Doktor der Naturwissenschafter, that is, Doctor on Natural Sciences.The abbreviation comes from the Latin, Doctor reranatura. It is the equivalent of a PhD, butitwould be incorrect to use that abbreviation. My degree was granted by the

University of

Hamburg in 1979, and in 1988, I also completed the habilitation there as the first person from a non-German speaking country to do so.

Charles Heckman

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply