To the uninitiated, particularly our many readers in countries other than these United States, this explanation of the American legal system is must.   It is not as advertised.

In federal courts of law and in the application of American liberty, the bibles are the United States Code (USC) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).  The USC are the laws passed by Congress.  After a law is passed, each agency uses the bases of these statutes to write its own regulations.  The results are what's called the CFR, or Code of Federal Regulations.  No elected officials are involved in this process.

While the CFR is supposed to properly apply laws passed by Congress, they are written to benefit agendas and extend the power of federal agencies.  And while they may at times benefit Americans being abused outside of government, they can through agency phraseology, be turned against a citizen contesting abuse by the government itself.  Essentially, statutes passed by Congress become operationally irrelevant as un-elected and tenured bureaucrats balloon them geometrically, into a plethora of regulations that form the basis of defining our personal freedoms and extend the power of government agencies.

You do have the right to a court challenge in proving that a specific regulation in the CFR was not in compliance with the relevant statute passed by Congress, but  this is no easy task.  First, you must have a judicial reason for the challenge. Secondly, to wage any viable court battle, you'd better be prepared to put up a minimum of $500,000.00 in legal fees.

This means that for the most part, agencies like the US Department of Justice INS can broadly interpret legislation the way they wish, virtually uncontested.  And of course, the US Attorney's Office attack dogs get special training in manipulating the CFR to the benefit of the agency they will be defending.  They will spend any amount of YOUR hard earned tax money.  They will conduct marginally legal investigations and use threats to intimidate you.  Working with the federal agency, their goal is to crush you with an arrogance and brutality that seems to bring them great joy.

Combine this with the fact that Federal Judges feed from the same trough as other federal officials and you realize how farcical our touted liberty has become.  When you go up against a federal agency, you do so in a system that is little more than a narcotic to make you feel that justice and decency has meaning, because it does not.  The only thing that matters is manipulating the CFR and in the case of going up against the federal government, the rules are designed to stop you cold.

Combine this with the fact that considerable legislation alleged to fight abuse exempts the federal government from compliance and you are faced with an almost insurmountable task.  Your only hope is to have financial resources to pay for a very skilled and experienced trial team.  Caryl Leventhal did not have this financial luxury.  

NOTE: Since her initial battle began in the prerequisite INS US Department of Justice Administrative Process between 1996-1999, Caryl Leventhal always contended that brutal Reprisal existed due to her attempting to stop on-site criminal activity and an inefficient virtual "open door" policy for criminals and terrorists.  Prior to her termination, Caryl Leventhal met with agents from the US Department of Justice where she explained what was going on. Caryl was one of the first whistleblowers to terrorist friendly activities and wanted this information on the public record to warn the American people. Through obstruction of justice and legal maneuvering, this primary bases was excluded by Larry Zief, the INS Regional Counsel in Burlington VT and Mark Gross, USDOJ Adjudicator in Washington DC.  The latter did this on grounds that the INS EEO section never placed this Reprisal information in Ms. Leventhal's case file and he found out too late.  This latter claim is untrue based on Certified Mail receipts in Ms. Leventhal's possession.

It should also be noted that during Ms. Leventhal's trial against the USDOJ, Judge Shira Scheindlin (a Clinton Administration Appointee) would not allow mention of documented on-site criminal activity and dangerous processing inefficiency within the area in which Caryl Leventhal worked.  This corruption was investigated and confirmed by Congress in 1997 and confirmed by the USDOJ itself in their August 2000 findings by the USDOJ Acting Inspector General.

THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS: WHY will judge Shira Scheindlin keep from the jury and court record, evidence and testimony of the rampant terrorist friendly corruption Caryl Leventhal was attempting to stop (You can find it by going to the Sworn Deposition of Brenda Grant).

WHY will Judge Shira Scheindlin refuse to allow Caryl Leventhal a short time to secure a new attorney when the one she had was issued a letter of admonition by the courts on September 26, 2000 (the day he was to represent Caryl Leventhal in court concerning her complaint against the US Department of Justice) "for conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer."  (On January 6, 2004, Caryl's former lawyer will be suspended from practicing law under charges of "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.")

WHY will Eric B. Fisher, Deputy US Attorney place winning a case over information from this whistleblower that could warn the American people of terrorism?  Why will Alan R. Kaufman, Chief of the US Attorney's (Southern District) Criminal Division threaten The Leventhal family with arrest and prosecution if they didn't censor this website to place the US Department of Justice in a better light?  Why are they working to place America at risk?

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

(Case # 99CIV.10405 [SAS]- Filed October 08, 1999 Amended January 10, 2000)

----------------------------------------------------------------------X

CARYL B. LEVENTHAL 

Plaintiff,

Jury trial requested

-against-

HON. JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE UNITED STATES

Defendant

----------------------------------------------------------------------X

Plaintiff, by their attorney, MICHAEL R. BRESSLER, ESQ., complaining of the defendants, alleges the following:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, etc., 42 USC § 2000e et seq. and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 USC § 791. This Court has jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 USC §§ 1331, and 1343(a)(4). Venue lies in this District under 28 USC § 1391(b).

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff CARYL B. LEVENTHAL (referred to herein as "plaintiff") is white, 47 years old, a practitioner of the Jewish faith, suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, and is a female citizen of the United States. She resides at ____________ ___________, Brooklyn, NY 11215. At all times mentioned she was employed by the UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE ("INS"), a federal bureau within the Department of Justice, led by defendant Hon. Janet Reno, having an office at 26 Federal Plaza, 10^th floor, New York, NY 10278 in the Southern District of New York.

3. Defendant HON. JANET RENO, is the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and is the former employer of plaintiff. Her office is at 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001. At all relevant times Mr. Edward J. McElroy was District Director of the INS's New York District, Ms. Brenda Grant was plaintiff's First Line Supervisor at INS but was later replaced Ms. Agatha Stewart. At all times, Mr. McElroy and Ms. Grant and Ms. Stewart were employed by INS in a managerial capacity and acting on behalf of defendant. That is at all times, they or each of them had dominion and control over plaintiff's terms and conditions of employment. JURISDICTIONAL PREREQUISITES

4. Plaintiff has complied with all the jurisdictional prerequisites to an action under Title VII. On July 14, 1999, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Office of Federal Operations issued a "Right to File a Civil Action" as she has timely filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Department of Justice. Plaintiff's Administrative Complaint (I-96-8079) is filed against Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States. Copy of the Right to File a Civil Action is annexed as Exhibit 1.

5. This complaint is filed within ninety days from plaintiff's receipt of this Notice of Right to Sue.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. Plaintiff has Multiple Sclerosis. She has suffered from that disease since March 1992. Prior to her employment with defendant, plaintiff was productively employed full time, at a firm involved in marketing research.

7. In May 1995, plaintiff was offered employment at INS as Supervisory Applications Clerk (G6) in Section 245. At that time, she was pressed for a starting date by Robert Brouillet, INS Supervisory Personnel Management Specialist. Five working days before plaintiff was to begin, Mr. Brouillet called and said that she couldn't start because of "points" due other candidates, although no civil service test was involved.

8. Fired from her job after giving notice, plaintiff was stripped of the dignity of gainful employment. Plaintiff suffered her first exacerbation of Multiple Sclerosis in three and one-half years.

9. It was only due to advice and intervention by First Lady Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Senator Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY) and formal threat of discrimination suit, that her offer was resurrected by a reluctant INS.

10. Still the offer was reinstated only after an extraordinary and hostile second INS investigation in the Summer of 1995 conducted by Steven Smith, Security Officer of INS in Vermont. INS demanded, inter alia, that plaintiff sign a release form opening her income tax records open to public scrutiny. Plaintiff was informed that not complying would result in her never getting the position she was previously offered.

11. At this time and for all times mentioned herein, plaintiff was completely open about having Multiple Sclerosis, including at her former place of employment. Further, plaintiff sent a certified letter to Leonard Klein, Deputy Director, Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Washington, DC. Plaintiff informed Mr. Klein of her condition, prior to beginning work at INS in late October 1995. Plaintiff wanted this information to be available for open review in her personnel files.

Section 245

12. Plaintiff was assigned to Section 245. Her title was "Supervisory Applications Clerk." The section was almost exclusively African American. The exceptions were a small number of Hispanics, one Asian and two older white people hired much earlier. Upon information and belief, plaintiff was the first non-African American to hold the position of Supervisory Application's Clerk in Section 245 in decades.

13. Plaintiff's First Line Supervisor, Brenda Grant is African American. Her Second Line Supervisor (later her First Line Supervisor), was a white woman married to an African American. Plaintiff's Third Line Supervisor Gwen McPherson was a white woman also married to an African American.

14. Plaintiff was made to feel as if she was an unwelcome outsider, in a position reserved for either an African American or someone directly affiliated with the African American community.

15. In response to her co-workers displaying photos of their African American and mixed-race children on their desks, plaintiff brought in photos of her step-son and husband. Defendant's reactions were looks of contempt, as if the display of a white child and husband was offensive to them.

16. Upon information and belief, plaintiff was also the only practicing Jew in Section 245, save one, hired much earlier. This second Jewish person had the added protection of being Shop Steward. Ms. Grant and her cohorts, were determined to keep this section a white, Jewish, and M.S.-free zone within the INS. As the following will show, she stopped at nothing to accomplish this end.

Extremely hostile work environment

17. When plaintiff finally began her employment, some of the first words from Ms. Grant, were "If you leave now, we'll give you a good reference."

18. Plaintiff was usually kept out of planning sessions, although her lead clerk -- under her in the hierarchy -- Ms. Delores Filbert, was virtually always included. Yet, in a perfect catch-22, plaintiff was constantly berated for not knowing what was going on and held responsible for any problems that arose.

19. Early on, plaintiff became aware of lax controls in Section 245. Whenever plaintiff spoke with Ms. Grant about ideas for improving efficiency or reducing the possibility of corruption, plaintiff was told to sit down and keep quiet.

20. Plaintiff was mocked and imitated by her non-white, non-Jewish, non-M.S.-suffering subordinates. Rather than discipline them, Grant and Stewart laughed along with them, encouraged them, etc. with an indifference and cruelty that knew no bounds.

21. Plaintiff was forced to lift and carry 3' x 1' boxes of files weighing as much as fifty pounds. She was ordered to lift and carry these boxes while distributing the contents to some thirty Applications Clerks several times a day.

22. These tasks run counter to plaintiff's Official Job Description which mentions nothing about heavy lifting, climbing, or any responsibilities requiring physical labor. If it had, she would not have taken the job due because of her condition. In addition, she was forced to climb high shelving to retrieve many pounds of thick folders, in spite of plaintiff's complaining that she felt as if she would fall.

23. Upon information and belief, no non-white, non-Jewish, or non-disabled employees in Section 245 had to do any of the tasks listed in the above paragraph.

24. Plaintiff mentioned having Multiple Sclerosis, to Ms. Grant in early November 1995. It was mentioned to Ms. Grant after she complained to plaintiff about having high blood pressure.

25. Plaintiff sought help carrying and distributing boxes of files to her work force. This was a very simple, very reasonable accommodation. However, her clerks, under her, refused to do it, saying "it is not their job." Plaintiff asked for help from her Lead Clerk, Ms. Delores Filbert, but the latter also refused.

26. Ms. Filbert had the audacity to then complain to Ms. Grant about plaintiff's request. Ms. Filbert and Ms. Grant are long time work associates, are Christian, and do not suffer from disabilities. Demonstrating once again her insensitivity and cruelty, Grant's response was to yell at plaintiff and tell her it was plaintiff's job and hers alone. She never bothered to review plaintiff's job description or ignored it. Defendant failed to support her subordinate manager, plaintiff, simply because she was white, Jewish, and suffered from M.S.

27. Further, Ms. Grant effectively refused reasonable or even good faith accommodation that would have cost her department and INS no extra time, labor, or expense.

28. Plaintiff repeatedly told Grant that she needed help because someone with Multiple Sclerosis is not supposed to do heavy physical labor. Ms. Grant would reply that plaintiff could always leave with a good reference. Ms. Grant clearly believed that whites, Jews, and M.S. sufferers were less than human as she showed no compassion whatsoever.

29. Within a few short weeks, under the leadership of Ms. Grant, plaintiff was forced to work in an atmosphere of extreme pain. Plaintiff suffered headaches and severe pain in the limbs. Plaintiff knew her M.S. condition was being exacerbated by forced heavy physical labor. She asked for a reasonable accommodation from Grant. Her response was a firm "no," after all plaintiff was only a white, a Jew, and disabled.

30. Plaintiff felt isolated and intimidated in a hostile environment. Plaintiff was afraid to complain to an EEO counselor for fear of being terminated, since INS's Regional Office in Vermont had previously initiated a hostile investigation during the Summer of 1995. Plaintiff knew that the actions of INS forced her to give premature notice to her former employer, resulting in termination from that job. Plaintiff knew that if she were terminated from INS due to complaining to EEO, her work record would be ruined.

Grant circles her wagons

31. When she was lucky, plaintiff was able to use one of the few wagons available for the fifty pound boxes. To do this, plaintiff would have to search both the 8^thand 10^th floors. Most of the time they were filled with files and she could not use them. When plaintiff would return to her desk, she would be yelled at by Grant for being away from her desk. Thus, Ms. Grant set up a scenario where plaintiff could never do the right thing.

32. At no time did Ms. Grant provide plaintiff with even the good will accommodation of her own wagon to push the heavy loads. Of course, no non-white, non-Jewish, and non-disabled employee was treated in this matter and then yelled at.

Grant's holy war

33. Plaintiff was not born Jewish, although she has "religiously" followed the Jewish faith of her husband and step-son for over eighteen years. When plaintiff asked Ms. Grant if she could put up a small Menorah for Chanukah, Ms. Grant replied that only Christmas decorations were allowed. This was, of course, a federal building.

34. Shortly after plaintiff's employment began, Grant asked her what religion she practiced, contrary to the Constitution of the United States and federal statute and regulation. Plaintiff explained that while she was not born Jewish, it was the faith she chose. Ms. Grant replied that plaintiff was not Jewish. Ms. Grant could not accept that a Christian would choose to follow the Jewish Faith.

35. Ms. Grant ridiculed plaintiff for eating Matzah during Passover.

36. Ms. Grant forced plaintiff to give Yom Kippur day off to plaintiff's non-Jewish lead Clerk, Delores Filbert. It was allegedly done because Ms. Filbert's daughter worked for a Jewish company that was closed that day.

37. When plaintiff requested permission to take the Yom Kippur holiday off to observe it, Ms. Grant sent her a memo dated February 26, 1996 questioning plaintiff's "wisdom" for taking the same day off as her Lead Clerk Ms. Filbert, copy of this memo is annexed as Exhibit 2.

Agatha Stewart's reign of terror and error

38. On or about January-February 1996, Ms. Agatha Stewart was appointed to the position of plaintiff's First Line Supervisor. It should be noted that Brenda Grant continued her involvement as plaintiff's Second Line Supervisor.

39. Stewart continued Grant's policies towards the plaintiff. The hostility, contempt, and pressure never stopped, even though plaintiff's condition was deteriorating rapidly. Plaintiff frequently notified both Grant and Stewart about her condition and the effect of their actions thereon, to no avail.

40. By April 1996, plaintiff's pain had become unbearable. Ms. Stewart's response to her pleas was to tell her to "shut up."

41. On June 7, 1996, plaintiff received a very negative Intermediate Review. Plaintiff was told by Ms. Grant, "If you leave now, we'll give you a good reference." Ms. Stewart added, "nothing personal."

42. As a result, on June 8, 1996, plaintiff suffered the beginnings of what was medically diagnosed as an "Acute Exacerbation" of Multiple Sclerosis.

Plaintiff's illegal termination

43. From June 10, 1996 through June 13, 1996 plaintiff and her husband, Michael Leventhal phoned plaintiff's Supervisors at INS several times to inform them of the seriousness of her exacerbation of Multiple Sclerosis. Plaintiff was yelled at by both Grant and Stewart, both stating that plaintiff would be marked "AWOL" if she didn't return to work. Mr. Leventhal was hung up on when he pleaded with Ms. Grant and Stewart to stop yelling at plaintiff when she called in sick.

44. During her illness, plaintiff sent certified letters up the chain of command at INS 26 Federal Plaza and further sent certified letters to both Hon. Janet Reno, Attorney General and Ms. Doris Meisner, Bureau Chief, INS. Plaintiff wrote that if nobody helped her, she would expose the corruption and inefficiency in Section 245.

45. On June 24, 1996, against doctor's orders, plaintiff returned to 26 Federal Plaza. She hand delivered copies of certified letters and doctor's notes explaining her condition to Robert Brouillet, Supervisory Personnel Management Specialist. Mr. Brouillet was the individual who mishandled plaintiff's hiring process in May 1995, see paragraphs 11 through 15, supra. Mr. Brouillet said there was nothing he could do and plaintiff would have to speak with Ms. Grant.

46. From June 10, 1996 to August 7,1996, plaintiff sent certified letters explaining her condition and complaining about her treatment. These letters went to Brenda Grant, Agatha Stuart, Gwen McPherson, Edward McElroy and others in her chain of command. Via certified mail, plaintiff sent doctor's notes and MRI reports from neurologists confirming the serious nature of her condition.

47. Plaintiff was marked AWOL for 264 hours despite the aforementioned telephone calls, certified letters, doctor's notes and MRI reports, detailing and confirming the seriousness of her condition.

48. Ms. Grant sent a memorandum, dated July 24, 1996, to INS New York District Deputy District Director, Mary Ann Gantner, recommending the termination of plaintiff, due, inter alia, to the aforesaid AWOL hours. Ms. Grant mentions nothing about plaintiff being seriously ill despite the fact that everyone in the chain of command, she included, was aware of plaintiff's dire circumstances. Also in this memo Ms. Grant refers to plaintiff's request for time off to observe Yom Kippur as "peculiar judgment." One wonders why Ms. Grant would refer to observance of the highest holiday in the Jewish religion as "peculiar." Also, the Administrative Manual for the INS at 2224.22, no. 6 states:

It shall be the policy, insofar as practicable, to permit employees to be absent on annual leave to attend or participate in the various established religious holy days faith, for example: Good Friday, Yom Kippur, etc.

Copy of the Memorandum and section of the Manual is annexed Exhibit 3. (emphasis added).

49. On August 13, 1996, plaintiff received a certified letter of termination dated August 8, 1996 written by defendant Edward J. McElroy - District Director. Among the reasons for termination were her showing "poor dedication" to her job. In a critical medical emergency, that was known throughout the chain of command, plaintiff was terminated without warning. Copy of Mr. McElroy's letter is annexed as Exhibit 4.

50. Mr. McElroy, reiterated Ms. Grant's false allegations in a memorandum dated September 6, 1996, to John P. Chase, Director of the Office of Internal Audit. Copy of the Mr. McElroy's Memorandum is annexed as Exhibit 5. Upon information and belief, McElroy was aware that Ms. Grant et al. were embarrassing and placing his district in legal jeopardy, so he felt the need to denigrate and defame plaintiff further. McElroy mentions plaintiff's 264 AWOL hours without explanation and never states that she was home critically ill. He vaguely references plaintiff's grave medical condition with the specious statement that defendants Grant and Stewart were very lenient in allowing plaintiff to use leave to take care of her physical problems. Included in that letter is the following:

[plaintiff] resorts to threats of exposure . . . of such irrelevant factors as alien's behavior in the Federal Building and alleged illegal activity by some district personnel. Though such factors are certainly of great concern, they have no place in any complaints Ms. Leventhal is making concerning section management.

51. These false allegations were published to various Justice Department officials. They imply a refusal by plaintiff to report to work. Despite being fully cognizant of the gravity of plaintiff's condition, defendants omit any medical reason for her absence.

52. The publication resulted in serious, long-term damage to plaintiff's reputation on her job, in her department and agency and related departments and agencies, and among her peers. Defendants published this false information about plaintiff with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

53. The publication adversely affected plaintiff in her business and profession.

54. Plaintiff was denied accumulated sick pay in spite of following regulations for someone seriously ill. Further, plaintiff was denied requested vacation pay in her time of financial need.

55. Plaintiff was even subjected to different terms and conditions throughout her illness and in the termination process. Contrary to regulations, plaintiff was denied her Final Probationary Review that was scheduled to occur on September 30, 1996.

56. From June 7, 1996 until plaintiff received her letter of termination on August 13, 1996, nobody in INS or any other Justice Department agency ever called her. Nobody wrote any letters of inquiry as to her condition and nobody responded to any of plaintiff's correspondence. Plaintiff's supervisors made it seem as if she had simply stopped showing up for work.

57. On September 2, 1996 a letter of formal Discrimination Complaint was sent to Elizabeth Christie- INS/EEO So. Burlington VT and was subsequently accepted.

Plaintiff couldn't file earlier than September 2, 1996, because her condition had affected her thought processes causing mental confusion and diminished clarity of thought.

58. Plaintiff has been engaged in the administrative process for three years.

59. From June 10, 1996 onward, plaintiff Michael Leventhal wrote all correspondence at plaintiff Caryl Leventhal's request. Michael Leventhal was intentionally excluded from the process by management at INS 26 Federal Plaza. He was denied access to knowledge of the complaint process.

60. Preliminary and vague information about the complaint process first became available to Michael Leventhal on August 13, 1996 when plaintiff received her termination letter sent by Edward McElroy. Mr. Leventhal wrote back requesting broader information about who he could contact and where he could file an INS/EEO complaint.

61. Upon receipt of this information, Michael Leventhal began the Administrative process with INS/EEO.

62. Michael Leventhal is not a lawyer. Had Mr. Leventhal not been denied access to the rules and formal complaint process, he would have filed in early June 1996. During the Summer of 1996, Michael Leventhal had to remain home to take care of her. The resulting dire financial situation in plaintiff's household, precluded their securing legal help. These conditions were intentionally created by the management of INS.

63. Plaintiff has not been employed since her termination in August 1996. Due to her condition, exacerbated by defendants, she is now incapable of gainful employment.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

64. Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1 through 63.

65. Plaintiff was subject to different terms and conditions of employment on the basis of race, religion and disability and was subjected to an oppressive and hostile work environment in violation to Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act.

66. As a result, plaintiff suffered great damages, humiliation, emotional distress and great exacerbation of plaintiff's Multiple Sclerosis.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

67. Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1 through 66.

68. Because of race, religion and disability, plaintiff was denied reasonable or even good faith accommodations, pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act.

69. As a result, plaintiff suffered great damages, humiliation, emotional distress and great exacerbation of plaintiff's Multiple Sclerosis.