****** __________________ ******

SENT DATE

PROLOGUE

CONTENTS

1. PREAMBLE: you can't imagine how little I wanted to think about or look at this stuff again.
2. THE GOALS: not SPECIAL treatment - only FAIR treatment.
3. RULES OF ENCOUNTER: for efficiency and your own protection.
4. THE MOTIVATING CONDUCT OF HOFFER, EGAMI, WATSON, AND BOWEN: says it all!
5. BACKGROUND: why me, why now?

PREAMBLE

• REFERENCE MY 1985 EVALUATION RESPONSE which contains my 1985 Evaluation as an attachment. Most information summarized below was presented in the "Response"; all information on this site had been given to my legal ream team (Chuck Zeh and Vivian Lynch) in written form or during discussions. I didn't include some material in my Response because I refused to wash dirty laundry in public; if you disagree then please display the real disagreements between heir Stefan and the kindly white-haired idiot.
  
  
• REFERENCE NEVADA SUPREME COURT DECISION FOR CASE #19781 - Decision filed 27 March, 1990. I apologize for not having a transcript on this web site - my copy has been lost and there was not enough advantage for me to justify the cost and energy of retrieving another copy. I have included my REPLY to this Decision - a letter to the Supreme Court completed on 14 February 1991. It contains some highlights, extracted from the Decision, which shall be referred to in this note as hardy examples of your (moral) corruption, twisted logic and arrogant belief that you can make critical decisions without requiring any proof from my antagonists while dismissing my well documented arguments. Was I expected to just swallow any verbal defecation you may spew out?
  
  
• I recommend you rent the video Pentagon Wars to get a hint of my frustration sources at DRI.
  
  
• This is no longer about DRI/UNR degeneracy: my present actions are aimed at the depravity of the Nevada "legal industry" - based on my very simple and straight forward experience.
  
  [a] Had I been as maniacal and cowardly as the DRI managers and UNR administration, or had I been as arrogant and corrupt as the lawyers I dealt with, or had I been as narcissistic, disrespectful and whorish as the Nevada Keystone Kourt I would not complain about my termination - it would have been deserved. You will be challenged to demonstrate, with evidence, a fault in my professional conduct that was 10% as irresponsible and superficial as the behavior of all involved in this debacle. [b] Each of you was the asshole you accused (and convicted) me of being.[QZ01a,b 20 days] In short, your professional conduct makes nurse Rachet look like Mother Theresa.
  
  If you don't care about facts, procedures and statutes that protect me, then why should I care about other laws that protect you? [QX01 6 days] Whether my present actions are revenge or delayed justice, you should not whine - you had complete power to prevent them then, and you have the necessary control to stop them now. What I found in the "legal industry" was a greater interest in preserving your power via pomp, assumed integrity and even force rather than assuring justice.
  
  "The chief duty of society is justice." Alexander Hamilton as quoted by the Dean of the National Judicial College; is this concept still important today or merely a virtuous reference to sweeten the indoctrination?
  
  "People place trust in attorneys everyday. People are asked to place trust in a judge." Richard G. Hill in the Las Vegas Review Journal, 25 August 1998. This less than subtle jape will become apparent to all - later.
  
  My original intent was to include several apposite citations; but, that's been done by each side, and the problem is more basic than case law. Also, I've been told that in private chambers you laugh when one of the "little people" quotes basic rights provided by the Constitution - please do not waste time denying this, it is NOT hearsay - I was surprised by how many lawyers start by clerking. My view is that a vast majority of Americans wouldn't think that's funny. Now, our little dance is propelled by No justice no peace or perhaps I should include a quote from Sweeney Todd.
  
  
• I will never again submit to the control or formal scrutiny of Nevada officials. The biggest weakness of your system is the human element - if not overtly corrupt then too likely to abuse the power and trust of your position.
  
  
• NOTHING IS NEGOTIABLE
  • You have no province to dictate or even suggest - you will ONLY decide to, or not to, respond to my questions and statements. All communications will be by e-mail (click links) and will be direct, factual, inclusive and short - obey all rules.
  • Timelines will give you enough time to do the right thing (e.g. investigate my claims - for your own satisfaction) yet discourage any scheming designed to find/silence me:
    • Responses are due no later than noon (Reno time) on the specified dates.
      1. Click E-MAIL 6 days for Questions QX01-QX11: due before noon 6 days after "sent" date of this letter
      2. Click E-MAIL 17 days for Questions QY01-QY37: due before noon 17 days after "sent" date of this letter
      3. Click E-MAIL 20 days for Questions QZ01-QZ05: due before noon 20 days after "sent" date of this letter
    • The "SENT DATE" will be clearly marked on the envelope and at the top of this document.
    • You are encouraged to respond before the given dates.
    
    
  • You pride yourselves on being quick-studies and you have many other investigative resources; therefore, there are no valid excuses - you could have given my case a legitimate assessment then - no complaints now about wasting your time until I have successfully disrupted your professional life for 15 years.
  
  
• Everything requested of you is UNOFFICIAL
  • I am not asking for another judicial ruling, only an apology for the mistakes/misunderstandings or deliberate/arrogant/elitist injustices that lead to the loss of my job, profession, home and now my life. This request is more correct and no more embarrassing than what you expected of me - per the providential wisdom put forth in your Decision. If the Pope (God's earthbound spokesperson) can apologize for past trespasses of his sodality, your task is trivial.
    
    Obviously, there is no need for an apology if you can disprove my claims, prove I did anything deserving dismissal, or clearly state that what happened to me is within your system's bounds of acceptable social behavior and the law (this implies, of course, you will accept the same treatment by me, now).
    
    You have several options in handling this situation: [QX02 6 days]
    • Kill me. Assumed to be your default choice.
    • Have a dialogue and argue that, even with this site's presented facts, you see nothing wrong with the way I was treated. As I was required to do with my 1985 Evaluation, you must DISPROVE each and every "fact" presented on this web site.
    • Have a dialogue and convince me that I did ANYTHING deserving termination.
    • Have a dialogue and apologize for your arrogance, elitism and the indefensible/prejudiced Decision.
    • Ignore me, again. Treated the same as the "kill me" option.
    
    
  • Since this is not formally judicial you will communicate in common sense, lay terms - the intent, attitude and expectation will be clear to me. Consider this a (reality-based) encore to your "Judicial Forum" - a reaching out to the people to explain and clarify your mission.
  • You will NOT preach to me from your royal throne about the rule of law; this present situation would not exist if you had been interested in a just Decision rather than presenting a delusive, legalese manipulation of the system to gain a predetermined outcome - every attitude and action from your industry has made my reactions the most definite (if not only) way to get your attention. You betrayed me by failing to execute your sworn duties, per our social contract - I place trust in (and allow) you to judge me, with the essential requisite that the review be fair.
    
    "If the DRI management and UNR administration raped my dignity then the Nevada Justice System murdered it." (me to District Court Judge Carnahan at a 1991 Judicial Forum) [QY01 17 days]
    
    Yes, I was there and intended to speak of my experience; however, I was too enraged after the Keystone Kourt Justice articulated - with head held high and a kindly, honorable smile - the noble role of the Justice System in eliminating the "might makes right" doctrine. This was after issuing my Decision which was nothing but an unabashed display consoling the absolute (unquestioned) power of the employer - the "casino mentality." It's time to stop acting like an errant intern and get off your knees long enough to do your job.
    
    
    You plainly bowed to the powerful over the "little person" whose total protection was in the hands of the "legal industry." You acted like owned whores with the supreme power to ignore the only facts presented, which supported the employee, in order to protect the master. I am now sorry that I did not submit to an impulse and spit in your face.
    
    You are NOT NEEDED for life: only water, food, air and shelter. You are NEEDED to hold the woven fabric of a civilized society together. [a] What happens when the "Justice System" (deliberately) fails in its mandate? [b] How much responsibility does the "legal industry" accept, due to this type of corruption, for the level of violence in our society - a result of people bypassing your slow, frustrating, unresponsive (corrupt?) system for a quick, definitive resolution? [c] Have you created the vigilantism you are commissioned to prevent? [d] Since your piteous utterances in my Decision were nothing but political; should I respond politically? [QX03a,b,c,d 6 days]
    
    [a] What political power do the insignificant possess? [b] I learned, during my re-education, that terrorism is a legitimate, useful and at times necessary form of politics; but is it applicable here? [c] Well, what viable alternatives did you leave me, to grab your attention, after effectively assassinating my character, honor and professional reputation? [d] Is it any more civilized to bludgeon a person to demise with (factitious) words than a club? [QX04a,b,c,d 6 days]
    
    You will win, no doubt, but I will draw blood - physically and figuratively. I will not be a passive bystander this time. You have most every advantage: you have the numbers; you have the weapons and attitude to use them; you have infinitely better PR which has already branded me as an incompetent malcontent worker, troublemaker, liar, mentally unstable and as dangerous as Charles Manson - in spite of the facts and the first 50 years of my life. Like Egami, you weren't about to let facts get in the way of the obvious.
    
    When I expressed anger at your corruption (the direct effect being the end of my professional life) you called me psychotic and violent. When I sought help to control my anger (not for your protection, but to regain my concentration) you considered this definitive proof that I was mentally unstable and, therefore, discreditable.
  
  
• The same rules, laws, prejudices and deductive reasoning (as applied to me during my crisis) will be used to judge your past and present actions. For example: if you wish to challenge my portrayal of the Evaluation process and managerial/administraive turpitude, or my unique circumstance, or your exposed flawed analysis, or the challenged Evaluation lies then DISPROVE them - until then I assume that you accept my statements as truth and my actions as appropriate.
  
  This means you will be treated with every grain of respect which you (the collective "legal industry" you) blessed me - more than anything else I say in this note, you should fear this statement the most.
  
  "No one ever said that life or the system were fair." [QX05 6 days] The most often stated response, by lawyers, to my pleas of unjust reviews, interpretations, opinions, rulings and decisions - its now time for you to bend over.
  
  Other noble lawyer quotes include: "There is no such thing as a fair trial." and "All civil trials are political."
  
  
• This note and my actions are a blatant attempt to reverse the Golden Rule meaning from your definition: "He who owns the gold, rules." back to "Do unto others...."
  
  
• You are now responsible for the continuation of my web site and e-mail account (our sole links to communicate): not monetary but content and existence - that is, keep my web and e-mail accounts active, don't screw with them AND keep others from tampering with, or disrupting access to, them. My e-mail has some important restrictions - obey the rules.
  
  
• The cost of getting your attention will be my life. You never found a reason to give my case a microsecond worth of consideration: now, if you cannot find the compassion to respond (five options), then keep this in mind - I consider every action against you as the last thing I'll ever do - I can't lose and I can have you any time I wish.
  
  What did you do to deserve these attacks? What did I do to deserve termination? Unfair happens - according to your mythology! You have this chance to rehab my character or I will go out being the demon you have portrayed me as. The basic question, NOW, is: will you defend something without regard to the information available if your lives depend on it?
  
  Perhaps this is some form of justice: you could screw me to the ends of the earth because of your position and power. Now, I can return the favor due to my insignificance. Unfair?
  
  [a] Your comedic attempt at making a confident, regal sounding explanation (Decision), while falling over eachother, led me to rename your fraternity the "Keystone Kourt." [b] You didn't make a single legitimate point, just like Watson in my Evaluation, yet presented an authoritative sounding document backed only by the status of your position. [QY02a,b 17 days]
  
  
• It may be very difficult for you to WANT to do as I request; but, I will make it near impossible to ignore me.
  
  
• It is not my intention to kill any of you, and I don't know how to make an elitist feel the desparation and helplessness that overwhelmed me. The best I can do is make you feel like an insignificant bug that can be squashed at will. Cold and without and ounce of reflexion - not even for your family or any positives you've done.
  
  According to your records I am capable of causing severe property damage and personal harm. However, in reality (and understanding the reality may help you find and neutralize me), I have never done harm to the property or health of another individual; including, losing my only two fights when I refused to swing back (there were no good reasons). Nor am I stupid enough to believe that I could bomb an old SAC headquarters built to withstand a nuclear explosion at 100 yards: so much for the credibility of Vivian Lynch. But, you already knew her vindictive capabilities. If you are reading this note, then I overcame these lifelong attitudes.
  
  Doing harm to others may seem easy (even good gamesmanship) to your types, but, it has not been for me. During the time these obvious injustices were being perpetrated on me, I never acted toward anyone in a threatening way. Recently, the summers of 1998, 1999 and 2000 I was in Reno with the intention of performing these acts of justice/revenge. Each time, the thought of carrying out my plan (I know the routines, workplaces and living accommodations of most key players) sickened me.
  
  Perhaps congratulations are in order for being the only entity in my life to cause me to do violence? Do I have any regrets? Only that I didn't do this 15 years ago. The lesson would have been more direct and I would not have suffered my pathetic existence of the interim years - there has not been one second that I have been grateful for being alive. Not a single, meaningful smile. My moods ranged from apathetic to deep depressions where life barely existed from second to second: the worst lasted for weeks with few meals and no more than two hours of sleep per night. The anxiety, which was very similar to having drunk five cups of coffee too many, destroyed my concentration. How can one even defend himself when each breath is considered a waste of oxygen that another could use?
  
  During the worst episodes of the last few years, only the thought of creating an extraordinary obstacle for you to hurdle every morning kept me alive. I especially wanted to produce a defect that would make you think of me each time the obstacle was negotiated. A defect that would add to the challenge of simply existing, thus, channel energy away from contributing to your life's quality.
  
  
• The rules presented are very important for an efficient, honest (experience rquires annunciating this element), gentlemanly resolution to this situation. These procedures are efficient and sufficient.
  
  The standard shall not be how you contributed to my losses; rather, the governing standard shall be my losses. Therefore, you shall suffer correspondent losses by any means available to me.
  
  

THE GOALS

• Give you the opportunity to read my reply to the referenced Decision and explain the discrepencies between your rationalizations and the facts. I was embarrassed to read your Decision, and completely rejected it as indefensible, baseless drivel (counter to any "facts" presented); but, couched in majestic rhetoric.
  
  
  • [a] You should start with; what "REVIEW" did I receive? [b] What could your standards or definitions for a "REVIEW" possibly be that would defend the way my termination process was handled? [QY03a,b 17 days]
    
    [a] Can a supervisor use FALSE allegations of a subordinate's performance to actuate a dismissal? [b] If the accusations for dismissal are solidly proven false during the review process yet the dismissal is upheld: is the review LEGITIMATE? [c] If the answer to either question is yes, then why have a review process? [QY04a,b,c 17 days]
    
    I have only asked for:
    • a legitimate REVIEW of my performance, per UNS Code, by a neutral DRI individual or committee; the faculty senate would be the best vehicle (they need to balance the protection of DRI's reputation as well as an employee's right to fairness) - this was denied
    • a REVIEW, of DRI's procedures and the legitimacy of how the given REVIEW was performed, by the Nevada District Courts; a trial, with a jury of working people (including managers and supervisors), would be the best vehicle to debate and determine the facts - this was denied
    • a REVIEW, of the lower court's denying my right to fairness and equal treatment under the law, by the Nevada Keystone Kourt - "all men are created equal" does not mean I have the same abilities, but does mean I have the same (legal) strength of voice and credibility as any other - this was denied
    • to conclude, the only thing I ever asked for was a FAIR REVIEW - this very basic principle of civilized society was denied by all, without ever considering the presented facts - you may, after a legitimate REVIEW process, rule against me with a credible explanation which addresses the facts (your Decision only communicated disrespect)
      
      
    [a] Why was my requiring proof (especially when my substantial documentation clearly revealed a different characterization) such a hard concept for this court to grasp? [b] The question is not why SHOULD you believe me, but, why DID you believe them? [QY05a,b 17 days] Ignoring pertinent facts isn't bending an insignificant rule, it's spitting at the soul of your position. Why shouldn't my complaints of the corruption seen at each level have grown louder and louder? Instead of correcting the ignorance, you (all) became very defensive (more so than I at being called incompetent) and threw me in jail.
    
    You were correct in backing off my prosecution for the alleged threats, because you knew how untrue and unprovable they were; plus, it didn't matter because the intention was NOT to prevent me from performing some aggregious and stupid violence - the two-week incarceration was to teach me a lesson for criticizing the "legal industry." Certainly, if you thought I was going to "get" a judge and Zeh, and blow up an occupied building you would be negligent not to prosecute. When I continually refused to plea down to a "disturbing the peace" charge you backed down. I was facing another six months in jail awaiting trial and thirty (plus) years in prison if guilty - yet, you backed down. Well, I learned a lesson - just not the one you intented. Your actions are now proving to be a priceless influence.
    
    
  • [a] Is it stupidity or arrogance that allowed this Kourt to think I would believe your Decision falsely stating UNS Code Section 5.2.4 as my best protection? [b] Even ignoring, for the moment, that this section did not exist at the time my contract was signed and your admissions it "may not apply" and was not strictly followed; how about Section 6 which provides for a review by peers when considering terminations for cause? [c] Section 6 which itemizes many of the allegations mentioned in the Evaluation. Section 6 which requires a peer review committee that Hoffer said, as he handed me the Evaluation, would immediately be formed per UNS Code - Section 5.2.4 denies peer review. [QY06a,b,c 17 days]
    
    
  • Why did the Kourt conveniently omit any debate about Hidy making his decision before receiving (or without receiving, depending on who you believe) Stojanoff's findings? [QY07 17 days] My guess is that when something can't be defended you just ignore it.
    
    Would this Kourt dare write a final decision before receiving briefs? [QY08 17 days]
    
    [a] Your Decision implies that since I received the false reasons for termination IN WRITING and Hidy DIVINED his decision (without benefit of any reviewer's recommendation) WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, all procedures were satisfied. [b] Using information here; how can you possibly defend this logic? [QY09a,b 17 days]
    
    
  • The following Decision statement is one well-crafted, simple sentance conveying three critical inadequacies with four monumental errors; because it is based on (disproved) allegations - not facts.
    
    
    "The reasons given for Appellant's nonrenewal were that his overall performance differed substantially from the standards expected from EEEC professionals; that his stated dislike of quality assurance (QA) work was incompatible with his role as QA officer for the EEEC; and that communication problems with his managers reduce his effectiveness as the QA officer."
    
    
    • Overall, this is the perfect microcosm of your Decision's incredibility and amplifies the theorem: perfect logic is useless without (correct) facts, or in e-speak "garbage in garbage out." Fundamentally, you clearly recognize that I was dismissed for "reasons"; Chapter 6 is titled "Termination for Cause" - yet you (and Zeh) say this doesn't apply. What am I missing?
    • Error 1 concerns my performance and EEEC standards. [a] First; what standards? - the only standards are defined in Chapter 6 of the UNS Code (and were used by Watson to prepare my Evaluation), yet this Chapter did not apply, according to UNR administration and all Nevada courts. [b] Second; compare the evidence presented by DRI (zero) versus my Response. [c] Third; my evaluations from three successive DRI supervisors (Steele, Miller and Watson), letters of reference from colleagues and clients, and successes listed in my Response and throughout this note present an ineluctably different image. [QY10a,b,c 17 days]
    • [a] Error 2, my "stated dislike of quality assurance" was NEVER declared as a reason for my termination and relies on an out-of-context quote that even the author of my Evaluation wasn't impudent enough to include amongst a litany of fictive deficiencies. Of all the wretched defecations masqueraded as viable arguments in your Decision, this ranks in the top two. [b] My efforts and accomplishments suggest an award - not a termination: [QY11a,b 17 days]
      1. I was not hired to do QA; I was ASKED by Roger Steele, to fill the ARL/DRI void, due to my technical skills (practical and theoretical knowledge of instrumentation), communication abilities, and enthusiasm to prove myself as a team player (by doing a job neither I, NOR anyone else in ARL/ASC/DRI wanted) and worthy of more interesting projects
      2. the context of "dislike," as explained in the Error 2 link, refers to ARL petty (self-centered and uproductive) politics
      3. despite my dislike for QA, I always went beyond EPA requirements for instrument testing, as well as communicating both results and solutions
      4. despite my dislike for QA, my accomplishments were considerable, against political opposition from Hoffer and Egami - subtle point, I could have sold-out and become a supreme court justice
      5. despite my dislike for QA, my EXTRA effort on every technical audit contract greatly benefited DRI; for examples compare my audit reports with ERT reports, see my SPPC work, my Donnelley work and my IBM work - the "standards" required me to be a problem finder: I took great pride in being a problem solver
      6. despite my dislike for QA, the first couple of years required extra effort to compensate for the lack of test and recording equipment - boneyard analyzers had to be repaired, or analyzers in from the field for repair were "borrowed"
      7. despite my dislike for QA, I assumed responsibility for a high-flow standard (purchased, then abandoned by Hoffer because of the effort required), made it functional, and created self-diagnosis procedures and test procedures
      8. despite my dislike for QA, I assumed responsibility for the control software of a DRI designed automatic audit system when the original programmer halted development by proclaiming that the calculation accuracy was +/-100% - ON MY OWN TIME (I was already working after-hours to resurrect an old Bendix ozone analyzer) I reduced the error to less than 0.5% - the extra time spent was acceptable because the project allowed me to learn a programming language, how to add memory to to the system and how to work all aspects of EPROM's
      9. despite my dislike for QA, I greatly increased DRI's QA capabilities - procedures, equipment, philosophy and REPUTATION - from near zero under Hoffer's direction to one of praise by three supervisors (Steele, Miller and Watson), clients and EPA
      10. despite my dislike for QA, Watson praised my extensive knowledge of EPA "activities and regulations" (1983 evaluation)
      11. despite my dislike for QA, I was making arrangements with EPA (Research Triangle Park) contacts to use DRI as an unofficial regional test lab - due to our extensive standards' inventory, expertise and attitude - unofficial, but certain to bring DRI much lab business and advertising for research capabilities
      12. despite my dislike for QA, Dick Egami contracted me to do QA work on his projects after observing my work (for one year) on SCE projects, and sold SPPC on my abilities to resolve long-term equipment and standards' problems
      13. despite my dislike for QA, my intervention saved Egami's sale of a calibration system to EPA Region IX - this was done by traveling to Las Vegas and demonstrating/explaining the system (subtle question - why didn't Egami or his site technician demonstrate the system?)
      14. despite my dislike for QA, I was back to work a day after foot surgery - doctor recommended two weeks off - to help Dave Miller with problem equipment
      15. despite my dislike for QA, I missed several weekend mountaineering trips because I was stuck in the field troubleshooting instrument problems late into Friday evening - compare to others who never let work get in the way of their personal interests
      16. despite my dislike for QA, I often used vacation or sick days to pay for machinist's time for QA development
      17. despite my dislike for QA, I used part of a vacation trip to visit EPA's RTP lab facilities and make person-to-person contact
      18. despite my dislike for QA, I helped (unpaid) the Nevada DEP on Saturdays so my normal commitments and schedule wouldn't be interrupted.
      19. despite my dislike for QA, I spent six hours auditing and doing maintenance on (not my responsibility) Carlin Gold instruments while being sprayed (due to high winds) with an arsenic (acid) leach solution - my eyes, skin and lungs burned for two days
      20. despite my dislike for QA, I had incentive to do better than average (an accepted necessity for a BS in a world of Ph.D.'s) in order to apprentice myself to more (professional) goal oriented projects - see my evaluations written by two previous ARL managers Roger Steele and Dave Miller - these same goal requests were COMMUNICATED to Watson (not being acknowledged by any of his evaluations is another example of him being a horrible manager by not listening to subordinates)
      21. despite my dislike for QA, I did NOT cave or submit to political pressures from Hoffer, Egami and finally Watson
      22. despite my dislike for QA, I put work responsibilities above course work (few classes ever completed)
      23. despite my dislike for QA, I only took classes that developed my expertise in quality assurance work, NOT the advancement of my career goals: additionally (concerning attitude), while colleagues took some of these same courses "to tell when their technicians were lying to them" - I studied to better understand what the technicians were trying to tell me and understand the limitations of my instrumentation
      24. despite my dislike for QA, I worked 50-hour weeks in the lab and 80-hour (5-day) weeks in the field without supplemental compensation
      25. despite my dislike for QA, I used (Fleischmann) funds, reserved for audit equipment updates that would make my life in the field easier, to make up for cost increases of lab standards
      
      Your cited quote implies that it is ordinary, or normal, or even absolute for an individual to perform poorly if he does not like his present job: first, how dare you make that leap of logic; second, since my performance was beyond requirements, does that make me extraordinary?
      
      
    • [a] Error 3, "communication problems with managerS" is at best confusing and solidly inconsistent with all presented facts in my Response: e.g. 1, e.g. 2, and the comprehensive discusssion of e.g. 3. [b] Even Stojanoff, in his deposition, admitted that after becoming aware of a communication problem in July 1985, he "couldn't determine whose problem." [c] Your words are bogus on several levels from "managerS" falsely being plural to the three documented, referenced examples. [QY12a,b,c 17 days] Additionally, the communication skills of Watson, observed during my tenure at DRI, were very detrimental to DRI funding.
    
    [a] Was my performance as QA manager negatively effected by the relations with some DRI PI's (there were no problems with project managers outside DRI)? [b] YES, I had to work harder to overcome their faults, disinterest, arrogance and laziness! [c] You will name one instance where MY lack of communication hindered either my effectiveness as QA manager or the QA program objectives in general - pay extremely close attention to Stojanoff's deposition remark AND communication deficiencies illustrated in the Watson, Egami, Bowen histories. I won't, here, make you account for Hoffer's incredulous behavior. [QY13a,b,c 17 days]
    
    
  • The most absurd statement in your Decision is again so far off target that I can only interpret it as salt in a wound (my experience revealed one of your most disturbing lineaments to be the sadistic desire to kick someone when he's down):
    
    
    "While appellant might feel some awkwardness explaining to a new employer, why he left his previous job, the reasons given for his nonrenewal did not forclose ...[his] opportunity to take advantage of other employment opportunities."
    
    
    • This statement is completely out of bounds for any person; the Evaluation was a devastating censure (and was intended to be - purely as a show of power). For the shy, dropping a fork in a sparsely filled restaurant produces "some awkwardness."
    • This is not the type of profession you can just walk across the street to pick up where you left off - part of your "casino mentality." [a] Tell me of other available QA positions in Reno/Carson City (so I could keep my home - excuse me, according to Zeh this was just a "bad investment"), Nevada, or nationally. [b] Now eliminate all except those which have the DRI advantages of a university and research facility. [QY14a,b 17 days]
      
      
      The de facto result was to deny me the "right to work."
      
      It was not by chance that I ended up at DRI - when I came to Nevada I rejected two opportunities to stay in Colorado and one to go back east with my employer at that time - only DRI offered a step forward toward my professional goals. The combination of a job I could perform, research facility, and university were perfect and rare. My many years of considerable effort, inching toward my goals, were about to be rewarded.
      
      
    • [a] You tell me that my Evaluation might cause a little embarrassment, and proceed to throw me aside without an ounce of legitimate consideration - you and most lawyers I've talked to treated me in a manner consistent with the way a person should be treated IF my 1985 Evaluation were true. [b] The Evaluation was of such force that no reader could get beyond it without extreme prejudice: three lawyers rudely ushered me out of their office, without even reading my 22-page response with 85 pages of documentation; others just used the "don't have the time" excuse to get rid of me; the more desirable, prospective employers require an applicant's last evaluation - NONE replied after receiving mine. Such allegations could NOT be considered anything but fatal in this profession; and rightly so. [c] Who would dare hire the person described in that Evaluation? [d] I would not, and I cannot for a fraction of a second believe that any members of this Kourt would. [e] The (obvious) reactions I experienced are exactly why I had to fight the Evaluation based dismissal and the review process with such passion. [QY15a,b,c,d,e 17 days]
      
      The closest I'll come to making a demand is for the name and present location of the person responsible for authoring that statement. [QY16 17 days] You took the wind out of my sail and, just because you could, bored holes in my hull.
  
  To conclude: if you were Satan and made this statement everyone would have said, "Well what do you expect - that's Satan." But, since your words are deemed credible by law, this statement is taken seriously.
  
  
• Ask again that you read my Evaluation and Response. Then tell me why the exposed discrepencies and my extensive documentation were not enough to elicit a single question, much less an investigation, by Stojanoff, Hidy, any supposed independent participant/reviewer or the "legal industry." [QY17 17 days]
  
  Consider the following procedural variants, omissions and blatant (provable) lies:
  • DRI President Hidy (closest friend of John Watson) makes his decision before Stojanoff's memo is sent - this is strictly against procedures specified in the UNS Code. It is also one more sledgehammer hint that the "review" process was only for show and the result was predetermined. Could this be the core purpose of the regulation?
  • Stojanoff's recommendations came without a single question; although he "assured" me, in person and before another witness, that a "thorough investigation" would be performed - he caved as a direct result of UNR administrative pressure. NO REVIEW, get it? [QY18 17 days]
  • [a] Hoffer's (clamant) interview lie, "Naturally, I consulted with his supervisors, peers and subordinates during the preparation of this evaluation." has the single purpose of manipulating the reader into believing that the evaluation process was independent, extensive and therefore completely credible. [b] First of all, Hoffer contacted no one - he was contacted by Watson because Watson, NOT Hoffer, prepared the Evaluation (more in next item) - and second, only one person in ARL told me that he was consulted - go to Egami and tell me if you can see the tiniest reason why he might want to see me gone? [QY19a,b 17 days]
  • Hoffer authored the Evaluation - this lie's only purpose is to manipulate the reader into believing that what follows is unbiased (distancing Watson, the actual author) and, therefore, credible. Hoffer admitted to the truth in his deposition, yet it didn't matter: why? [QY20 17 days]
  • ARL "intangible" R&D funding expenditures - an attempt to assassinate one's character with a "concrete" allegation about mishandling funds. HOWEVER, the expenditures were completely accounted for with purchasing documentation and existence of lab instrumentation; additionally, Watson's own memo, requesting the funds, states that a payback plan would be accomplished in three years with "existing projects."
    
    How could this allegation of criminality NOT be questioned after my documentation (and DRI records) exposed the facts? [QY21 17 days]
    
    
  • Authorship of the DEP Proposal. Besides my handwritten first draft of the proposal, the tone and philosophy are distinctly mine. These distinguishing differences, as well as Watson's and Egami's ignorance of QA procedure, could easily have been exposed during a LEGITIMATE internal DRI review or a trial. They were allowed to steal my work just by saying so: why was this flagrant lie not important? [QY22 17 days]
    
  • [a] Concerning my PI status on the DEP Project it is also important to understand that EPA regulations and common-sense logic make it very clear that QA personnel CANNOT be supervised by another PI and (ideally) should be an independent entity directly under the unit's management. [b] As with judges or other neutral arbitrators, a boss can pressure a subordinate; perhaps an employee, whom would not bend to illicit pressure, could even be FIRED. [c] Is that, in part, what happened to me - what do the facts say? [QY23a,b,c 17 days]
  • Given my authorship of the DEP proposal as fact (and everyone's inability to distinguish my writing from Watson's), my numerous (unedited) audit reports and the QA sections to each project's annual report, my Evaluation Response, and my response to interrogatories (completely written by me with only minor deletions of information by Zeh as edits) - these documents were clearly enough to smash the Evaluation's false statements about my writing ability yet never elicited a single question - why? [QY24 17 days]
  • Watson's lack of credibility is again displayed in my 1984 Evaluation when he commits to work close with me; however, like my 1985 Evaluation these are just words - for the purpose of manipualation - it never happened, there was never any intention for it to happen.
  • Although the Evaluation's first paragraph was sufficiently countered by the explanation presented in my Response, the commentary was unnecessary due to the provisions of UNS Code (5.4.3) which clearly negates the unwritten, alleged "goals" as viable: I did not complain when all the verbal promises of Roger Steele were denied (after his death), due to this reasonable provision, and you WILL NOT now. [QY25 17 days]
    
    [a] Why weren't these "goals" included in my 1984 evaluation? [b] Why weren't they, at the very least, documented in a memo, letter or piece of scrap paper? [c] Could it be that the presented "goals," like the meeting, never existed? [d] Given the animosity that existed: doesn't it seem reasonable that I would have demanded a written document (not only stating the "goals" but also the reasons for me, uniquely, being expected to accomplish some of them)? [e] This being reasonable: how could I demand a written version of something that never happened? [QY26a,b,c,d,e 17 days]
  
  [a] The above concrete objective, and demonstrable subjective, examples of my accusers' deviant allegations (strident lies) should have been more than enough to irreparably destroy the credibility of my claimants, yet there was never a single question - why? [b] The answer for DRI management and UNR administration is obvious; but what reason, other than corruption, could the "legal industry" have? [QY27a,b 17 days] The '85 Evaluation was a grand example of the day-to-day idiocy (arrogant and manipulative politics, lies and illogic) to which I was subjected.
  
  [a] Is it okay for me to play by your rules - as applied to me? The people I have/will put down are not victims: each attacked me and I just happened to be fully armed and prepared - therefore, self-defense, no crime, you can all go home. As a more direct example: after talking to several Nevada Supreme Court Justices, their clerks and a few maintenance personnel I can directly say without hesitation that the Chief Justice is having an affair - with his male clerk. Of course I checked all the stories and found no flaws. Additionally, I polled every Nevada citizen (above the age of ten) and I have read any defense you may write; sorry, as hard as I tried to help you, all came up negative. [b] So Mr. Chief Justice get your filthy and violated ass out of town. [QY28a,b 17 days] This is the same presentation as my situation - no facts and no less credible.
  
  [a] You didn't merely fail to look at this case objectively, you treated ME like a criminal. [b] You aided and abetted an injustice that drastically affected (ultimately ended) the life of a hard-working, decent person. [c] You obstructed justice willingly and with enthusiasm as shown by statements in your Decision. [QY29a,b,c 17 days]
  
  As a clear and real example that illustrates where your attitude leads, consider the Challenger tragedy: engineers too frightened of the consequences (including loss of job) to more strongly voice their technical concerns meekly submitted to the "politically" motivated launch decision made by superiors and administrators.
  
  
• [a] Having crushed the credibility of my accusers, with the above incontrovertible points, the other allegations (they said - I said) should easily be discharged, and entirely dismissed when my documentation is considered. [b] They will not be summarized here - see my 1985 EVALUATION RESPONSE for a clear, comprehensive presentation. [QY30a,b 17 days]
  
  What exactly were my transgressions? I don't want allegations, I want specific examples. [QY31 17 days]
  
  [a] Let me contrast the above facts, soundly destroying my alleged bad behavior, with very provable behavior of Watson, Hoffer, Egami and Bowen. [b] Can you find some justification for whatever discourteous behavior I may be guilty? If I was discourteous, it was by ignoring the ridiculous politics, statements and conduct of this coven. Is that lady a bitch or aggressive? Legally, what's the difference - can she be fired for either? [c] Was I an asshole or protecting my reputation, my established performance level, and my professional investment? [QY32a,b,c 17 days]
  
  
• Get to the root of what happened to me for the purpose of preventing future vacuous injustices, personal and industry-wide corruption, and ruthless displays of intellectual machismo.
  
  
  • Certainly DRI management and UNR administration shoulder much blame - but their actions were completely predictable (and expected).
    
    These are the events and personalities that lead to my dismissal, and governed the "review":
    • Watson was frustrated with my complaints of his non-handling of ARL managerial duties (funding and QA political support) because he was absorbed with his own (time consuming, underfunded) project, DRI politics and deeply indebted to Egami.
    • Hoffer - obvious.
    • Egami knew I was losing patience with his incorrigible behavior and corrupted technical practices; and tiring of the extra effort required - BY ME - to reconcile the deficiencies.
    • Bowen's motives were vindictive ("legal industry" progeny) and "inner-circle" envy.
    • Warburton was ambivalent about me (and my situation) due to ineptitude, managerial brotherhood, orders from above and knowledge that ARL would be splitting from ASC.
    • Stojanoff was the closest thing to an independent manager, for review purposes, that I could hope for. I succeeded in getting to him before the administration: he assured me that his review would be extensive, rigorous and include interviews of all involved. Within a week of our meeting he submitted to UNR administration orders - not a single question was asked.
    • Hidy was Watson's best friend and had no intention to deliver a fair determination - Watson was often referred to, by other DRI personnel, as Hidy's shadow.
    • Albert Gold (unredeemable) - as close to a nazi as I ever want to get.
    • Don Klasic (unredeemable), once notified of the termination attempt, per Chapter 6, changed the course of action for his typical anti-social reasons. When I complained about his lack of compassion (dealing with a person not chattel) and fairness in his review of my situation, he smiled while explaining that the law was "cold, hard and uncaring."
    
    What type of mental disorder (delusional, paranoiac - other psychoses) has to inhabit one's brain to believe that Dr. Hidy, Dr.Watson, Dr. Warburton, Dr. Stojanoff, Dr. Hoffer, Dr. Gold and Dr. Bowen could, one and all, be lying or involved in some mass conspiracy to get me. Obviously, this improbability and clash of status were the only elements of your thought process; since they were never required to produce any evidence to corroborate their accusations. I again ask that you not believe me - only the facts as presented in their depositions, any memo's, my documentation and my witnesses.
    
    You need only look at your own behavior to understand the arrogant pettiness of a Watson; or the mean-spirited (asocial) pathology of a Gold or Klasic. You not only failed as my safety net, you went out of your way to install poisened spikes in the ground beneath me.
    
    If you disagree with my assessment you may DISPROVE each element - until then, these arguments are facts and I MUST assume you concur. [QX06 6 days]
    
    [a] Realistically, who would you go to, and trust, for help to resolve the above problems: not your supervisor (and Evaluation author, Watson), not DRI management (Warburton, Stojanoff, Hoffer or Hidy) and certainly not the UNR administration? [b] I had no competent DRI/UNR options and completely depended on the courts for FAIR deliberation and protection. [QY33a,b 17 days]
    
    For example, let's consider the most logical person I could seek for assistance; Dr. Warburton, ASC manager (ARL was part of ASC at that time). Here are the reasons Warburton was considered ineffective:
    • he never responded to the numerous questions and requested actions intentionally placed in my 1984 Evaluation Response
    • several requests, by me, to meet with Warburton in early 1985 were denied
    • he often stated, in meetings, that "real scientists do their own QA" - a wonderful concept for pure research, unfortunately a majority of ARL's work is governed by the "Clean Air Act" which REQUIRES independent QA
    • during a time of low funding in ASC (managerial responsibility) he authorized 5 to 10% raises for the top salaried PI's and lab managers while cutting wages for the lowest paid by 20%
    • he submits to the brotherhood of his status and position; like cops, doctors and the "legal industry" - in hindsight he proved my point and showed his character - Reference Warburton's 9 August 1985 memo statement: "Although I have not seen documentation on these goals ... I do not question that such goals were set."
    • his substance is so transparent that a friend's 14-year-old referred to him as "packing material"
    
    How about the second most logical person, Hoffer - as EEEC's interim manager of northern affairs? Not a chance.
    
    Okay, certainly the third most logical, Stojanoff - EEEC's actual manager (on paper, but not really)!
    
    
  • Zeh knew all the information presented here through written and verbal communications (though none was ever deemed relevant) - any suggestions or questioning of his methods were met with "that (fact, guideline, rule, law, citation, etc.) doesn't apply" or "that's the way the law works." [QY34 17 days]
    
    [a] If you choose to completely blame Zeh for the botched handling of my case, you should disbar Zeh (as a good will gesture) and then explain why no other attorney did any better. As a side note: I did request the procedure, for a complaint against Zeh, from the Nevada State Bar. [b] They said I could go to the trouble, but, not much would come of it. This was echoed by nearly a dozen attorneys during my search for a Zeh replacement. [QY35a,b 17 days] What I did to Zeh was just a warning; you punish him or I will.
    
    Does the information presented here have absolutely NO relevance? They lied to change information for self-credit, to assassinate my character, and to manipulate the evaluation and review processes - yet Zeh, after $15,000 in fees, could find no problem. What would have to happen to be in my favor? [QY36 17 days]
    
    Other aggravating behavior and complaints of Zeh include:
    • always told me what wasn't important, but would NEVER tell me what was important
    • NEVER asked a pertinent question about the Evaluation's factual content or review process legitimacy during depositions or interrogatories - despite my constant urging
    • NEVER asked any question I wrote and submitted to him during depositions
    • NEVER included my responses to DRI/UNR motion statements, by pronouncing accuracy (truthfulness) wasn't important and that I was being defensive - all my attorneys did this to me, allowing several statements to become noted arguments in the negative rulings, including the "dislike of QA" folly
    • told me that courts give evaluators much leeway in expressing opinions of subordinates - no problem with that concept, but my evaluators were given all six lanes and I wasn't even allowed a bike lane
    • NEVER answered any of my calls - even when he told me to call
    • NEVER refused an incoming call during our meetings
    • refused to tell me the details of a two-and-a-half hour informal interview with one of my accusers - yet charged me for the time
    • my research file was nothing more than a duplicate of his Sands' file - I believe there is a name for that
    • lied about his progress and preparation on many occasions
    • when I questioned his (lack of) tactics he told me that he had to be careful, as an employer, not to give employees any advantage
    • tried to bribe a damaging witness in the Sands' employment suit
    
    Here are some attitudes I encountered during my initial search for an attorney and then for Zeh's replacement:
    • three openly called me a deadbeat and refused to be my "hired gun," disregarding my pleas to simply read my Response
    • another told me he read the Evaluation and fell asleep, after ten minutes, while reading my Response - yet still wanted to charge me for two hours
    • another said he would take the case only because he knew I was going down the road to the next attorney and he might as well be the one to take my money
    • another, who was told in a letter NOT to discuss my request for his review of my case with Zeh, not only told Zeh but sprung it on him during a deposition for a different case in which they were opposing attorneys - obviously this self-serving dispatch did not help my relation with Zeh
    • altogether I was given a half-dozen reasons why I could not win - none were based on case merits
    
    Yet more attitudes I encountered during my time in Reno:
    • Reno cop duo: when I pruchased a home in Lemmon Valley I prepared to leave my apartment by spending nine hours, over two days, making sure the place was spotless. After five unsuccessful calls to my landlord, to make an appointment for inspection, I used a lunch hour to drive there and make the request in person. Without provocation the manager phoned the police and said "there is a man in my office, I don't know whether he is drunk or on drugs, please get him out of here." They did so with no questions asked, no concern that I was completely lucid and without regard to my legal reason for being there (I was still a tenant). The $350 deposit was completely lost and I had to sue, in small claims court, to get the $100 pet deposit returned.
    • Larry Lodge: liar, coward, half-wit. As part of his contrition, I will require him to elaborate on the three lies told at my civil trial. A coward because the truth would have exposed some weakness in his professional conduct, and the gutless remarks made loudly in the presence of my friends (two women) - while standing bravely in a pack of his uniformed gang-banger brothers. A half-wit for believing that listing the possessions in my vehicle offers protection equal to or exceeding the simple act of closing the windows and locking the doors. I offer you this proposition which, if accepted, will make me instantly disappear forever: we will meet in a secret location, you will arrive at the remote location alone and armed only with a note from your doctor stating the present condition of your health.
    • Larry Lopey: when I showed up at the WCSO, to get an update on my case, he threatened me.
    • Kosach: first, put your judgment in my case in the wrong column. I don't place you in this group for ruling against me - I was horribly prepared due to a lack of working knowledge of your system (especially in how to the counter the unexpected lies told by Lodge and the Henderson slut), scheduling the trial during a week break between school terms and lack of resources to investigate some side issues that became more important than I imagined.
      
      The reason you are in my sights is your statement after the trial: "I don't believe the money ever existed." This, after I presented bank documents showing the withdrawal and two eyewitnesses who saw the money (whole or in part). Well it did exist and the truth was exactly as I presented. You are also responsible for having accepted the following behavior: 1) a list of my possessions provided adequate protection while my vehicle was impounded in a lot with a fence that I could breach by taking three easy steps; and 2) lot personnel who not only didn't lock my doors for protection, they didn't even have the decency to close the windows to keep Reno's springtime weather out (over the two-week period). Additionally, you are accused/convicted of rendering a political decision: going for the cop and lawyer vote in the next election.
      
      
    • Dreher (RPD): Ron, why would I think you're an asshole - three reasons? Let's test your courage and honesty.
    • Mini (WCSO): courageously apprehended me in the court house (alerted by Lynch after I caught her attention by saying hello on the way in), where I was using the computer to find a replacement lawyer. He cleared the halls by screaming that a suspected bomber was in the building (I had been in the building each day of the previous two weeks) then forced me against a wall to search me: during the search he managed to forcefully bring his hand up on my crotch (not, accidentally, once or twice to include the other leg but three times) - perhaps he met his demise by pulling this crap on someone less tolerant than I or with an asshole personality matching his own.
    • Camfield (WCSO): chastised me for searching for my money on properties surrounding the impound lot and asking questions of lot personnel that he did not. His whole strategy seemed to be aimed at proving my claim untrue.
    • One of the two polygraph officers (WCSO): he decided (and wrote in the official report his unsupportable belief) that I was lying: despite my tests reults being ambiguous (not clearly indicating truth or lie) - since the instrument detects emotional changes, and is used to diagnose problems, I suggested (to deaf ears) that my depression could easily explain the results; despite my voluntarily submitting to the polygraph challenge - not once, but twice; and despite the unofficial opinion of the first officer that I was being truthful. It is due to this Egami-like idiot that polygraph information should be highy suspect.
    • Tobey Smith (Ohio State Patrol) - okay, not one of Nevada's finest; but, impudent enough to be: I had just finished a three-year battle at NAU to receive an engineering degree, in my attempt to get back on a professional track. Since the morons, mentioned above, allowed my school funds to be stolen while my truck was impounded, I needed several student loans to get through this ordeal (even without my diminished condition this was a difficult curriculum). The funds leftover at graduation were accrued because I worked ten hours per week, walked to school rather than spending $35/semester for a parking sticker (yes, I walked a mile through the woods to and from school in knee-deep snow during the winter and afternoon thunderstorms during the summer) and allowed myself one night out per month. I graduated with $1200 dollars to get me to Massachusetts, find a place to live and embark on a hunt for an entry-level position in my new profession.
      
      Besides gas and food (no lodging) additional costs included replacing the ignition control module, gas pump and vacuum advance (minus labor) before reaching Ohio. Here a trooper pulled me over for not signalling when I passed a truck on the Interstate: he did so despite admitting there was no vehicle behind me to make use of the signal, that I signalled to pull back into the slow lane and that I was driving below the speed limit. I exited my vehicle to see three police vehicles, each with two troopers and one with a dog, pull in behind me.
      
      I, according to them, had a vehicle that looked like it was carrying drugs and the traffic violation allowed them to do a search. The dog smelled some thing and went nuts: the trooper, obviously getting an erection, exclaimed that the dog hadn't been that excited since he sniffed out 200 pounds last year. I was taken to their compound and handcuffed to a lone chair, in a closet-size holding room, for three hours while they completely unloaded and searched my possessions - which contained nothing more menacing than an icecream maker.
      
      Ignoring the pleas of his colleague, to let me go, the trooper said he needed to justify the time (some 16 man-hours by now), with more than a mere signalling violation; so he charged me with not having my guns and ammunition separated by the Ohio requirements. I needed to post bail and spent the night at a "campground" (50 yards from railroad tracks) while awaiting trial. I was fined $200, required to forfeit 10% of the bail and told that the remaing bail would be mailed to me. It took hours for them to understand that there was no old address to which the money could be sent and that I needed what was left to get to Massachusetts and find a new address - another night in hell awaiting resolution.
    
    And you have the nerve to call me an asshole!
    
    
  • Lynch isn't blamed for the job she did (due to her illness). However, when I challenged her veracity, based on my research of submitted documents to the courts, and a deep distrust of lawyers gained after the dozens of lies from Zeh (about deadlines, motion content and doing such a bad job presenting my story in the lower court it was nearly impossible to find a replacement); her response was to drop me in a way that other lawyers claimed to be unnecessary and possibly created a prejudice - at a minimum this was unprofessional.
    
    It is this type of abusive system manipulation that I find particularly disgusting. [QZ02 20 days]
    
    
  • Gutless Guinan couldn't be the problem, since you agreed with all his vacuous, unsupported rulings. Where ever he is today, at least he's not in a position to hurt anyone (so I will credit his nescient attitude to the "legal industry" in general).
    
    [a] Wouldn't it help if judges were required to explain/defend their rulings? This should not add a great deal of time since, presumably, the judge has REASONS for accepting or rejecting a motion - state them! References and citations are already given in the motion. This logical gesture would:
    • [b] reduce capricious judgments - that can only be redressed by a lengthy and expensive appeal
    • [c] reduce the cost of an appeal - addressing one or two reasons rather than the laundry list of reasons presented in a motion
    [QZ03a,b,c 20 days]
    
    
  • The Nevada Keystone Kourt became totally discredited by fumbling and stumbling over each other trying to find the slightest reason to defend your feckless Decision - your pathetic faults are detailed in my REPLY to your Decision.
    
    Do you occupy your position to rule, or serve the people of Nevada? [QX07 6 days] The answer is not clear from the mendacious natterings in your Decision. Most insulting was your expectation that I should just swallow your fourth-grade level arguments.
    
    
  • [a] I am simply looking for fairness and would accept a credible negative ruling. Your Decision is not credible, but since you are the last word in Nevada law I am not allowed to (officially) dispute the rendering; no matter how approbrious. [b] The present system of self-regulation is at best impudent. [c] Be careful, more like me may take over the obligation of watching the watchers. [QZ04a,b,c 20 days]
    • You blindly accepted the integrity of my tormentors - I suggest that you direct DRI to have the faculty-senate compare the allegations of my Evaluation with points made in my Response and this document. Be mindful in delegating this task; you are still responsible for the accuracy and logic of the results - no extra time will be allowed.
    • You may choose to blame my legal representation (in particular Zeh and Lynch); but, you will have to explain the attitudes of the two dozen lawyers whom either dismissed me (with "just remembered, I'm too busy") or worse, the three lawyers who escorted me (physically) out of their offices - without even reading my Response or listening to my side.
    • You yielded the opportunity to blame the lower courts, as explained above.
    • You may choose to accept the blame yourselves, for these injustices, by apologizing for both the ignorance of the Decision AND the tone, which was no less than twisting the knife in my back.
    • You may wish to keep the blame on me: you will need to disprove my claims, defend your pathetic treatise or prove the allegations presented in the 1985 Evaluation.
    
    You may say that you have to deal with many bad/evil people, therefore my treatment was reasonable. I simply ask; with all the bad and evil, why would you make an enemy of a good citizen? [QZ05 20 days]
  
  
• [a] Make you understand that NO Decision is unimportant to the person being judged: if you couldn't get something this obvious right, then, how could you possibly deal with a murder case? [b] I was told, many times, that my case was NOT important enough to merit your officious attention - you needed only to scratch the surface yet failed because you couldn't or wouldn't do the minimum. [c] Do you still think your exquisitely worded trumpery is an efficient way to execute the duties of a Justice System? [d] Am I still a throw-away boor who wasted years and nearly $20k in my patient attempts to reach a civilized resolution? [QX08a,b,c,d 6 days]
  
  As bad an experience that Wen Ho Lee went through, he should be ecstatic his case wasn't under the jurisdiction of Nevada courts. It is due to your political, arrogant and elitist behavior that you no longer deserve the very reverential title of "Justice System" and are appropriately referred to as the "legal industry." [QX09 6 days]
  
  
• [a] Have you acknowledge that because you can say some THING (no matter how untrue or stupid) about me with more confidence than I can say some THING (factual and documented) about me, doesn't make you right. [b] Because I can't say, with confidence, the truth about me doesn't make me a criminal or evil - perhaps just shy! [QX10a,b 6 days]
  
  
• Some rhetorical questions: will you let this situation grow to one more very public black-eye for the Nevada "legal industry?"; are you actively supporting the notion that civil servants should just mindlessly obey irrational orders and acivities that are detrimental to people and projects?; are you anymore than a professional debate club, where justice is secondary or a by-product?
  
  

RULES OF THIS ENCOUNTER

• The assumed defaults for your behavior and responses will be negative - silence is equal to "get lost."
• Spend limited time wisely: spend more effort resolving the truth/justice issues than finding/killing me. This would be the most efficient way to get me to stop.
• DON'T insult me with fairy tales this time - zero tolerance.
• DON'T ask a question which has a clearly presented answer on this site.
• DON'T send notes that are off the target.
• I will use aoc@nvcourts.state.nv.us when communicating to you.
• DON'T forward or send messages as replies - only send messages directly to rcapirci@myrealbox.com NOT my wireless unit (7758241111@my2way.com).
• DON'T send attachments or graphics - text only.
• Limit each e-mail to 4096 bytes TOTAL. This includes e-mail headings - all characters beyond 4096 are truncated; plan conservatively, it's your responsibility. If necessary, split e-mails into (well labelled) parts.
• Be cryptic but clear: use bullet format to minimize text - my e-mail service is restriced to 100kb/month, when this runs out so do your arguments.
• DO include question number (e.g. "QY13a") in your e-mailed response.
• GUIDELINES FOR ACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE ARGUMENTS
  • Keep very much in the forefront of your mind that I could have chosen to employ your appeal rules which would require your arguments, here, be based solely on their presented evidence versus mine. Mind the obvious - NO new inadequacies.
  • You need only tell me some incidences that prove my "incompetence." This task should be trivial, given the amount of deviancy declared in my Evaluation. Don't for a second think that you will be allowed to present untrue events - I am the final judge of truth (you forfeited that trust), and you will be enticed by some traps if you maintain the attitudes of previous encounters.
  • You may direct DRI to conduct the required, promised, comprehensive review that should have been done in 1985: you will be responsible for the ACCURACY of the results. The same conclusion may be reached, but, only if you present legitimate arguments (your Decision is way below worthy consideration). You will be held to the 17-day time limit to complete the review.
  • You must use factual negative complaints (not statements with 10% truth). I hope that you wouldn't let a witness get on the stand and spout-off 100 negative comments (including rape and murder) about a defendant, and then determine guilt or innocence with no proof, or commit the defendant to a death sentence if only two statements were true (jaywalking and littering).
  • You must use specific examples and situations to demonstrate truthfulness, frequency and severity of EACH allegation.
  • Arguing with confidence, but without documentation, is NOT acceptable.
  • Using your position to state an allegation doesn't make it true; you must prove it.
  • My negatives must be unique at DRI (no double standards).
  • My negatives must be worse than examples I've presented of their negatives.
  • The negatives must not be trivial - i.e., must be worthy of causing dismissal.
  • You will not extrapolate partial truths, to gain your desired conclusion, if a conclusion in my favor is just as plausible.
  • You will not use information out of its context.
  • You will not address only one (trivial) part of a question or statement and pretend all my concerns have been quelled - ignoring the more salient issues contained therein.
  • You will never tell me what was on my mind, or emphatically state my intentions - you may address such unique, significant points in question form.
  • You will never say: "they could have meant . . ." - suggest nothing that may be favorable to them or against me - prove it (above my documentation).
  • Don't even try to use an argument that my communications with Dick Egami were in any way lacking, that I showed him any undue disrespect, or that my efforts at getting his sites to collect legitimate data were anything less than Herculean. This individual was a QA manager's worst nightmare; zero scruples, great talker and one of the most powerful members of our group. He is a master of behind the scenes manipulation.
  • Similarly don't waste my time by arguing that any strained relations between Dr. Hoffer and myself were my fault.
  • Stating that since the lower court's review of Hidy's review of Stojanoff's review of my Evaluation provided enough safeguards is not acceptable - since it obviously (and unfortunately) did not.
• You will NOT argue that employers need an efficient means of eliminating "bad" employees - you'll get no disagreement from me.
• Nor will you argue that the courts are NOT perfect. I have no problem with imperfection, a must in living with myself; my difficulty is that you did NOT try to discover the truth and even overlooked the many facts presented in the Response.
• Don't ever let me hear that one of my targets "was a good citizen and hard worker who hurt no one" - that described me!
• I will never ask you to do something just to make you jump through hoops, as DRI management, UNR administration and the "legal industry" did to me; this exercise is meant to better the "system" for its users.
• Your arguments must be in lay terms: this is not a legal proceeding.
• If (when) you are unable to legitimately defend your Decision, DRI management, UNR administration, and the detestable behavior of the "legal industry" in general - apologize (unofficially).
• Here is a list of my priorities - beware, if you manipulate any of the exemptions (eg, police posing as paramedic) in order to apprehend me, all exemptions will be forfeited and all categories become equal priority:
  
  
  1. Most at risk are certain DRI managers and UNR administrators (including Board of Regents), certain lawyers, judges and justices: since I will not spend the time searching for Hidy, Gold or Warburton, the present DRI president, veep and DAS manager will assume their responsibilities, and be the object of my hunt - unless they cooperate with a legitimate review. In two cases this includes the offending party's family - Egami as the least honorable individual I've ever been around and Bowen, for his insatiable desire to be part of the "Big Boy's Club." If they step forward, before I get to them, and present the (whole) truth about my performance on their projects; I will not act against them.
     
     After Hidy's negative ruling I sent a letter to the Board of Regents in attempt to inform them of the injustice being perpetrated. Since all correspondences were reviewed and filtered by Klasic it never reached the the governing body: this is no concern, he was your agent acting with your consent, therefore you are all guilty.
     
     I hold no grudge against any of my co-workers who didn't volunteer to help me in 1985 - even though the actions of DRI/UNR could hurt them later; it was this sort of shallow behavior that was a major reason for my rejecting them socially. Also, siding with me could have led to immediate pain from the powers.
     
     I will NOT seek out the attorneys who represented DRI/UNR, at either the lower court level or the appeal: they did little wrong or obnoxious (excepting the "dislike" argument). In any case, the responsibility of sifting all information for truth and weight is the REVIEWERS. Also, in the few meetings we had, they seemed genuinely polite - unlike most of the attorneys I sought to represent me. Additionally, I shall NOT seek Rick Cornell who was bound by Zeh's (incompetent/corrupted) fiasco.
     
     
  2. Second level targets include the general communities of DRI, UNR, and the Nevada "legal industry" personnel. Just to maintain a Keystone Kourt level of unfairness, I shall include casino executives (your masters) and managers in this category.
     
     Exceptions to this category include; Nan T. Daly and family, Alan Gertler and family, David Schorran and family, the Broten clan, Rick Purcell and family, Steve Chai and family, Jim Hudson and family, Rick Stone and family, Jim Ashby and family, all grad students, and any State building or grounds' staff.
     
     
  3. Third level consists of nation-wide "legal industry" community - my time in Nevada will be limited and confined to the actions intended.
     
     
  4. Fourth level, families of the above.
     
     
  5. Fifth level, Nevada's general population.
     
     
  6. Sixth level, anyone in Nevada.
     
     
  7. I will never act against a public building (eg, courthouse, library, hospital, etc.), nor non-police entities such as fire-fighters and paramedics. However, be very mindful of your vulnerablities due to a dry summer - I am not trying to be a hero or take any greater risk than necessary.
  
  
• I will remain in this quasi-private forum unless provoked to go public. You may want to warn attorneys of other states; I will not limit my actions to Nevada. It is your responsibility to notify each member of the Nevada Bar. The prejudices against me will be imposed on your industry; ALL lawyers are guilty unless they convince me otherwise - maybe one enterprising, imaginative attorney/victim will sue you. A short expression of disgust, for the present level of corruption and non-productive displays of intellectual machismo, will be acceptable.

THE MOTIVATING CONDUCT OF HOFFER, EGAMI, WATSON, AND BOWEN

Tom Hoffer:

• Hoffer hated me before I arrived - even before I showed up for an interview:
  • there was an ongoing war between Hoffer and the man who hired me, Roger Steele (ARL manager and, therefore, supervisor of Hoffer and I, and, God forbid, a non-Phd - it was this deficiency in status, NOT management style or competency that irritated Hoffer).
  • Hoffer hired another individual, just prior to my interview, to do QA work (under the tutelage of Hoffer) on the SCE contracts - Roger Steele asked me to step in and take over the task before it sunk too far. Steele's comment in my 1980 evaluation, "... [Ric] continues to provide significant contributions pertaining to the solution of ongoing QA problems ...", refers to problems created by Hoffer's laziness, attitude and incompetence. My success only fueled Hoffer's anger.
  • Lest your perverted minds go astray - my attempts to be courteous to Hoffer were only interpreted as weakness, causing him to become more openly hostile - you have much in common.
• Delayed progress of an SCE annual report by withholding pertinent information from me. My first assignment, a week after arriving, was to FINISH a QA section (STARTED by Hoffer) to the annual SCE Mojave data report for the year ending 7 months prior to my arrival. Since the documentation was scarce and incomplete, Hoffer was my main source of information. He then complained about the delays to Steele; as any good manager, Steele assured me he was knowledgeable of both sides (as well as Hoffer's politics).
• Tried to force me to send Primary Standards to remote sites for instrument tests. I vehemently argued and refused - primary standards are too expensive to risk contamination or damage by sending to field sites, per EPA recommendations; in the case of ozone, one EPA requirement for being a primary standard is that it remains in the lab - secondary standards are appropriate for field work. His sole reason was to impress the client management; only an idiot would send a primary standard into the field. Only a changeling would be impressed by such an opulent, yet impudent, display - oops, sorry, that describes you.
• Screamed at me, with a demeaning tone, in the presence of a client when I retested a sulfur analyzer after it was turned off and moved - an EPA requirement. The 7% change was above Hoffer's (nonsensical) 5% criteria, but below the 15% EPA standard.
• Severely chastised me for using the PI fund to provide food and drink during a working lunch, despite the action benefiting all participants of a project conference - several were from California and billing their time to DRI. Additionally, this conference was the result of Hoffer being too lazy to write DRI's QA/QC procedures for the SCE project and, therefore, relinquished his responsibility to the external auditor - an embarrasing custom I ended. The conference, of course, was too trivial for Hoffer to attend.
• Referred to as "The Butterfly" by his graduate students and junior staff to describe his nonproductive flitting from project to project.
• Denied me access to ARL's ozone standard for two years.
• Purchased a Roots meter, a primary standard for high flow instruments, and lost interest when it required some thought and testing before it could be used. I assumed the responsibility and made it functional - including the development of self-diagnosis procedures and instrument test procedures. Of course he held this against me.
• Denied my request to purchase portable (primary) flow standards, designed for field use (QA) - as above, Hoffer preferred to send the very fragile 3-foot, precision, glass tubes to remote sites - obvious result, cracked tube.
• At the same time Hoffer was denying me funds to increase DRI's QA capabilities, he authorized the machinists to build, from scratch, a log splitter using SCE project funds. Particularly aggravating at the time was that I had to use vacation and sick days to fund my work by machine shop personnel.
• Head of Clark County Environmental Dept. hated Hoffer's arrogance and laziness; unfortunately she took it out on me (at every meeting).
• ERT quality assurance manager (also a PhD) hated Hoffer's arrogance and laziness; unfortunately she (savagely) took it out on me.
• Installed one sulfur dioxide analyzer to continually sample its own exhaust and another with a sample train which contained rubber stoppers.
• Drunk in the presence of, and abusive to, an SCE contract monitor.
• Referred to another SCE contract monitor as the "Dragon Lady."
• Bill Albright's unprovoked physical attack on an SCE contract monitor was a big joke to Hoffer. An act that was praised and bragged about in the halls. If this behavior was acceptable (per level of incitement), then NO "disrespect" I allegedly showed to the cited DRI managers should raise an eyebrow.
• Hoffer was a perpetual candidate for DRI managerial positions - fortunately his incompetence was no secret:
  • ARL manager- after death of Roger Steele - denied by search committee: temporary stewardship given to Dave Miller (God forbid, another non-Phd) until Watson was hired.
  • ASC manager - after Kocmond (God forbid, yet another non-Phd) became DRI president - denied by search committee: Warburton promoted.
  • DRI president - after Kocmond resigned - denied by search committee: Hidy hired.
  • EEEC manager - after creation in spring of 1985 - appointed as interim manager of northern affairs until Stojanoff (supposedly the overall manager, but in reality had no power) could be eliminated and another EEEC manager hired. Hoffer, of course, was rejected as the permanent manager by the search committee.

Dick Egami:

• Incapable of helping EPA Region IX audit team solve a technical problem while performing tests at a remote monitoring site with his calibration system. The call was transferred to me for resolution.
• Presented EPA Region IX with incorrect information, during a tour of the QA lab, about our development of an ozone standard when he was challenged by one savvy participant. I had to intercede with the correct explanation. No, I did not use this opportunity to further humiliate him.
• Egami's tours of the QA lab were crammed with misinformation about technical issues.
• Not trusted by EPA Region IX's John Henderson. I had to be an intermediary.
• Manager of Clark County Environmental Dept. - bad feelings between the two kept Egami from even COMMUNICATING to me that a request for proposal to do QA work in conjunction with Clark County personnel (over time I developed a good working relation with this Manager - after overcoming the giant hurdles of Hoffer and Egami) had been received.
• Routinely performed monthly data alterations (always favorable to the client), including adding data during instrument outages, without or against the technical backing of QA/QC information.
• Falsified a modeling study for a NV Power construction project - bragged about how he did it.
• RR Donnelly Stead facility effluent okay per Egami's modeling study - reality, with normal strong spring westerly winds DRI air intakes sucked up the Donnelly exhaust - result, many worker complaints and a building evacuation or two.
• Quarterly audits are evenly spaced snapshots of a network's performance, yet he tried to make me group two trips together (one at the end of a quarter period and a second at the beginning of the next quarter) to save money.
• Used project funds to develop and build the "Audical" for his private company "AMI."
• Collected horrible pollution data at monitoring sites - worst sites I ever audited and even worse attitudes, his and technician's, I ever encountered:
  
  "I know what data should look like; therefore, I don't need to collect data or do QA to tell me data quality" was a statement I heard numerous times.
  
  "More important than technical competence is loyalty"; loyalty to Egami, not the data or even DRI. Egami statement to colleague.
  
  "QA is a game, nobody really knows what the instruments are reading." Egami statement to me.
  
  
• The above point indicates Egami's worst trait, and most burdensome to me, was being a bad influence on his site technician - a lazy but loyal person:
  • In all the week long audit visits I made to this technician's sites (4 times per year for five years) I saw him only twice.
  • The site technician NEVER returned my calls, NEVER replied to my notes and NEVER helped solve site problems.
  • I sent Autocal update parts, with instructions, to the site technician weeks ahead of my audit trip. The parts never left his house. During the audit I spent six hours, between normal audit work, doing the modifications he was instructed to do (note subtle point - I was prepared with extra parts to make the necessary modifications). He still refused to use the Autocal in auto mode as instructed. I had to (very strongly) DEMAND that Egami tell the technician to switch the Autocal to execute the auto-mode program I had entered. Important note: there were NO technical reasons for the technician's reluctance to use the Autocal - quite simply, Egami hated Hoffer who funded the Autocal development and the loyal technician followed his lead.
  • After I spent much of a 12-hour day troubleshooting a sulfur dioxide analyzer (technician's responsibility), between normal audit work, and solved the problem, I left two pages explaining my findings and instructions to make my modification permanent. He completely ignored/criticized my effort and instructions, although, once the problem was found it could be duplicated with very simple and conclusive tests.
  • Every audit trip to his sites included a 2-hr cleaning of the sample intake system, and change the desiccant and charcoal cannisters for the site calibration systems - routine technician responsibilities.
  
  
• The previous examples led directly to an incident that was a main reason for DRI losing the Nevada Power monitoring contract. Egami's attitude toward data collection allowed the technician to rationalize rarely visiting his sites or paying attention to (automated) weekly tests of the pollutant monitors. This resulted in ZERO useful data during an accidental pollutant release - data needed and required by EPA and local agencies.
• Failed to do any instrument checks after an installation, and explained; "I could tell what flow the sampler was operating at by listening to the sound" - no reasons were given for lack of tests on wind speed/direction or temperature. This was after I spent six hours prepping and packing the test instruments, equipment and test forms/procedures.
• His "field" trips to Las Vegas were either spent on the golf course or coincided with the UNLV v. UNR sporting events.
• Laughed at and mocked my pre-audit memoranda requesting site information needed to efficiently schedule my site visits.
• Never (as in "NEVER") responded to my reports, memoranda or notes concerning QA findings and recommendations.
• Unremitting attempts to undermine my position and my attempts to unify all QA efforts by scheduling others, under his control, to go on audit trips to small mining sites - the resulting tests were inadequate, and the required reports nonexistent.
• Created, without consulting me, an account for QA funds:
  • how did this PI have the authority to create anything related to quality assurance?
  • why wasn't the QA manager (me) allowed access to these QA funds?
  The answer to these questions is simple: the account was set up to launder project funds for uses other than originally intended.
• Continually interposed himself on my QA projects that were not his concern. Though I was successful at getting the clients to call me with their project questions, I was never able to keep Egami from talking with them about QA affairs, nor could I get him to write a simple telecon about any project conversations. Trivial? On several instances I found myself in the embarrassing position of trying to explain why I had just contradicted things he had said to project managers from SPPC, DEP and Clark County about MY projects.
• Warned me NOT to get outside (DRI) funding for QA work since it would make me too independent (Egami's biggest fear and the major reason for his effort to get me terminated).
• Used very expensive Teflon tubing, without my permission. This tubing was a specialty item, several times more expensive than usual tubing needed for his purpose, purchased for a project that required very clean (uncontaminated) components. Although petty compared to the above examples, this does show his technical incompetence and lack of communication to me, per his disrespect toward me and QA work.

John Watson:

• Never backed me politically in my QA efforts (as Steele had) - especially true with his defending Egami despite my documented complaints about Egami's horrible data collection methods, philosophy, motives and ethics. What was the reason for Watson siding with Egami? You can prove the actual reason by reviewing billing records which will show that Watson could not keep himself funded and depended on Egami's project funds (with no project effort) to remain above the DRI/UNR radar - i.e., Egami just bought Watson's loyalty.
  
  The Nevada Keystone Kourt and I performed very similar functions: you judge the worth of an individual's actions and I judged the worth of an instrument's data. My work was based on NOTHING but test data (samples and procedures) traceable to the NBS. Your work, supposedly, starts with established facts and pyramids to the state constitution (disrespect intended). Would you be powerful and confident, or frustrated and discouraged, if there were no entity to enforce your decisions - and protect you? [QX11 6 days]
  
  
• By the way, I was NOT his biggest or most vocal critic.
  1. Egami was, by far, his most savage critic.
  2. Hoffer was a close second - and created the Visibility Lab to escape Watson.
  3. Warburton was critical of Watson - see Watson's 1985 evaluation, authored by Warburton: stated that Watson did not pay enough attention to ARL matters (especially funding) due to over-involvement with DRI politics - wow, exactly my complaint.
  4. Other ARL professional staff (unmentioned for their protection and privacy - but easily found) incessantly complained about his illogical decrees or trying to get them to act like him.
• Never included my complaints of Egami and Bowen in their evaluations.
• Fred Rogers had to become intermediary between Watson and client's (I believe Salt River) project management due to Watson's arrogant attitude.
• UNR President - called him a "spoiled brat" (bragged about by Watson).
• Board of Regents member called him a "maniac" (bragged about by Watson).
• Washoe County Environmental personnel despised Watson for his very negative references and blatant arrogance during a RADIO interview - I, of course, took the brunt of this hatred during my face-face work encounters.
• During my time at DRI Watson never brought in any funding for his staff, despite this endeavor being a manager's TOP priority; and regardless of his boasting, in a post-interview letter to the search committee, that $6 million in project funding would immediately follow him to DRI.
  
  Take a moment to understand that this same braggardly commentary, which was the major reason for his being hired by DRI, was used to manipulate you and other willing dupes of your industry.
  
  
• Watson's tours through the QA lab were filled with misinformation about our capabilities and lab directions, and never included the simple, courteous act of an introduction.
• During my time at DRI Watson had few good professional relations and several that were negative and detrimental to DRI funding.
• Watson knew he was a horrible manager, a manager in name only, and resigned this position shortly after the ASC split (into ASC and EEEC).
• Probably the most clear example of Watson's cold attitude was his handling of a programmer that ARL obtained through a state re-education program (which paid most of his wages). He had some seizures in his brain which left him with very poor eyesight and limited use of an arm and leg on one side. Watson did nothing but complain, loudly, about his presence and refused to acknowledge him. Despite much help from several of us he was "forced" to leave - not feeling very good about himself or his long path back to a useful and quality life.

John Bowen:

• Sent SCE project manager bad data (too lazy to check if data set was correct).
• He decided to update the QA Section to the SCE annual report (a good thing) and created a mess.
• Caused a very good secretary to quit due to abusive treatment.
• Chastised me for not signing and returning a United Way donation form: first, this contribution is supposed to be confidential; and second, I preferred to support specific organizations directly - some not within the UW umbrella. Along with my contributions to national and local organizations I often gave money to individuals in need of a break.
• Circumvented me, as leader of an audit trip, and ignored a jammed audit schedule by telling my tech/assistant to use some of our trip time to do several hours of troubleshooting and maintenance at a particular site.
• Rarely responded to my reports, memoranda or notes concerning QA findings and recommendations, and site information needed to accomplish network audits, unless I (redundant to written requests and requirements) asked in person.
• Never informed me of changes to network information - from site (lock) combinations to computer data-conversion factors.
• Multiple mistakes on a small data collection project for SPPC: after not observing the water stains (from roof leaks) on the instrument's top, then ignoring the uncharacteristic erratic data trace (caused by water in the electronics) and not being curious enough to ask about the performance deterioration, the instrument nearly burned up.
• Informed me that he was going to an SCE site to do tests on the ozone analyzer and that he would be taking the QA field standard. I could have said no, since he was not qualified to operate the test equipment, if I really was an a-hole. However, since my intentions were to educate the Watson, Egami and Bowen types in field data collection methodology and especially my test methods, I agreed with the stipulation that he be trained how to operate (and care for) the ozone test equipment and inform me of his results. (After giving me hell about spending excessive time auditing his sites) he spent four days at one site testing one instrument. He REFUSED to tell me about the purpose of his trip or the results of his tests - verbally or by filing a trip report.
• Abused a State vehicle by driving so fast on the unpaved access to one remote site that the vehicle became airborne and blew 3 tires off their rims on landing.
• [a] Bowen was involved with the only true problem instigated by me. [b] Do you know what it was? Do you know the background instigating my inappropriate response? [c] Do you know the vindictive nature of Bowen (not surprising as a judge's son) that led to six (subsequent) unprovoked attacks, on me, and left colleague observers with their jaws on the floor, in disbelief? [QY37a,b,c 17 days]

BACKGROUND Ric pic

• six years to earn a BS:
  • I love learning, I'm just not good at it - in general, if an A-student required three hours to study for an exam, I would need eight to twelve hours for the same grade
  • delays due to a school transfer
    1. I was an average student in high school, but, showed a slight aptitude for math and science
    2. during a senior-year meeting with the guidance counselor I expressed my career goals and the desire to attend Penn State: after the counselor composed himself from a fit of laughter he laid out a plan - small state school to prove competency, and transfer into the spring term when the school would be more liberal in accepting replacements for the fall and winter dropouts
  • time off to earn enough money for tuition, books and living expenses for my senior year
  • taking classes, core courses and technical electives more difficult than most of my colleagues (e.g. taking "tensor analysis" as an elective at the beginning of my junior year: the other ten students in this class were graduating seniors in aerospace engineering and a PhD candidate in math)
  • attending multiple lectures, recitations and labs for the problem subjects
  • copying over class notes as a way to review and clarify, before starting homework
  • attempting to do as much technical homework on computers as possible (a time when you handed the computer operator punch cards and returned for the printout a day later)
  • very rarely ever taking time for personal interests, social life or dating (single-digit count over the last five years)
  • spending 9 hours on Saturdays writing lab reports - rather than attending Penn State football games
  • I also had to contend with a Watson-like landlord (a brat whose power came from being without principle) who refused to renew my tenant contract the last month of school, due to arguments about his illegal activities and disruptive behavior - with little money I had to spend 10 days in my van as I finished classes, two senior research papers and final exams
• several 30(plus)-hour "days" trying to troubleshoot remote site monitoring problems
• working without gloves on 340ft and 500ft high instrumented towers in subzero temperatures and 20mph winds - besides the obvious danger of negotiating the tower ladder to get down, there were many tears when the hands warmed, and sometimes it took half-an-hour in a steaming shower to stop shivering
• putting tedious work ahead of classes that would advance my professional goals
• accepting a QA role (despite my apprehensions of being professionally trapped and the unwanted, but inevitable, political battles with lazy managers like Hoffer, unscrupulous individuals like Egami, inner-core wannabe's like Bowen, and without the backing of non-managers like Watson)
• 80 (plus)-hour 5-day weeks in the field and a 50-hour routine week at the lab (never doing anything that would advance my professional goals nor being paid for the extra time)
• three more years of school to start a new career
  
  Because I am not an academic, the path to accomplishing my goals had to be with extra effort, extra energy and a general apprentice attitude. Again, this 12-year investment of time, sweat, tears and even some blood (worse than the blood was an 800vdc shot through the chest, hand to hand, when helping and following directions of an engineer with the electrical circuit of a joint project), was destroyed without an ounce of legitimate consideration - unless you can plainly state it. This extra effort and energy made your actions, NOT a slap in the face, but, a knife to the heart; emotionally and professionally. I had intellectual and emotional limitations which took much discipline and energy to overcome - I expected them to define how far my career would go.
  
  
• why me?
  • I held a unique position within ARL and probably DRI at having to judge a PI's work and note the deficiencies of their data collection methods (instrumentation, standards, procedures, personnel) - this point is not trivial as several others in our group, also involved with Egami's data (quality, collection, processing and reporting), preferred to ignore his illegitimate monthly data manipulations, computer modeling studies and general unscrupulous philosophy that a client should get the data it pays for
  • I was a clear and very dangerous threat to Egami
  • I did not back down to Hoffer and his blustering
  • I did not back down to Bowen and his inconsiderate behavior
  • I did not back down to Watson - but respected and considered his opinions. I was critical of his (lack of) management style.
  • Watson also believed himself to be a young rebel and idealist (to the point of using his "chop" to sign memoranda) until he was tested - I believe he was envious of, and embarrassed by, my conduct:
    1. he praised my principle and restraint for not accepting the free beer; donated by Joseph Coors after a (particularly obnoxious) presentation, at a QA conference in Denver - certainly not crucial, but vocally noted by Watson
    2. I didn't buckle to his pressure; especially after a 0% salary increase in 1984
    3. he went over the edge after asking me; "What is your salary?" and I replied "Exactly, I don't know - it's enough."
    4. most of all he humiliated himself by submitting to Egami