Guest guest Posted February 22, 1999 Report Share Posted February 22, 1999 June 6, 1994 Office of the Clerk United States District Court Eastern District of North Carolina New Bern, NC 28563 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: On October 30, 1992 Judge Malcolm J. dismissed my complaint (92-59-CIV-2-H) on grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On page 5 of Judge 's Order of October 30, 1992 he cites 10 U.S.C. 1553(a) and states, " ..., he is able to appeal his discharge to a board of review until September 15, 2001. " Also, on page 9 Judge states, " If the plaintiff is not satisfied with the administrative resolution of claims 1 and 2 then he would [be] able to file all four of his claims in one action. " At this time I am filing Tommy G. Perkins v. Federico Pena, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation. Because of the significant constitutional issues involved (violation of all three Religion Clauses of the Constitution, and coercion and the Lord's Prayer), and because thousands of American citizens, including children, are being tortured into religious conformity, I am requesting that a panel of three District judges preside over this case, and, if necessary, my appeal will be directly to the United States Supreme Court, Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968). Enclosed is a cover sheet, my May 9, 1993 application to the Department of Transportation Board for Correction of Military Records, the Coast Guard's response, my counter-response, and the Board's final decision. The Board cites v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1994) in supporting its decision. I submit that this opinion holds no precedential significance in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. It does, however, signify that the Board has an awfully bad habit of being in violation of federal law in exceeding its ten-month limit for notifying applicants that they are " late " . I submit that the Board has erred in its evaluations of my allegations, the facts, and the law. I am requesting that you review this matter, rule on the constitutional issues that I have raised, and grant me the relief of full retirement pay and benefits for the rank of Lieutenant (O-3) retroactive from September 15, 1986, the date of my discharge. Enclosed also is a letter to Mr. H. Joost, chairman of the Board, requesting that he forward my complete file and service/medical records to you. Please contact me when you receive these records. I would like to examine them for accuracy and completeness. Enclosed also is my 1993 federal income tax return. If it is necessary for me to reapply to proceed in forma pauperis, please send me an application. Sincerely, Tommy G. Perkins 215 Harrell St. City, NC 27909 Copies to: Secretary, U. S. Department of Transportation Commandant, U. S. Coast Guard Mr. H, Joost Ms. Janice McKenzie Cole, U. S. Attorney --------------------------------------------------------------------- September 12, 1994 Heathcoat Deputy Clerk United States District Eastern District of North Carolina PO Box 25670 Raleigh, NC 27611 Dear Mr. Heathcoat: Enclosed is an updated copy of the complaint that I filed on July 23, 1991, my application to proceed in forma pauperis, and the summons you requested. I have tried, to the best of my ability to comply with the Rules of Federal Court. Thank you for your prompt reply to my letter of June 6, 1994. Respectfully, Tommy G. Perkins 215 Harrell Street City, NC 27909 Copies: Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard Ms. Janice McKenzie-Cole, U.S. Attorney --------------------------------------------------------------------- September 12, 1994 Federico Pena Secretary United States Department of Transportation 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, DC 20590 Dear Fed, I'm sorry I can't afford to get you your very own copy of Madness, Heresy, and the Rumor of Angels. Perhaps Washington's resident expert on " mental illness " , Mrs. Algore, can provide you with a copy. Regretfully, Tommy G. Perkins 215 Harrell St. City, NC 27948 --------------------------------------------------------------------- United States District Court Eastern District of North Carolina Tommy G. Perkins Plaintiff vs. COMPLAINT Federico Pena Secretary United States Department of Transportation Defendant FIRST CLAIM 1. That in November of 1985 the Plaintiff was an officer and helicopter pilot with the U. S. Coast Guard with eight years active duty, his fitness reports reflecting a history of being a good officer and an excellent pilot. 2. That in November of 1985, upon arrival at his new duty station of U. S. Coast Guard Air Station City, North Carolina, the Plaintiff confessed an off-duty drinking problem and requested assistance from the command for the problem. 3. That the command scheduled the Plaintiff to attend inpatient alcohol rehabilitation treatment at U. S. Naval Hospital Millington, Tennessee to begin on December 23, 1985 and to last for approximately thirty days. 4. That upon learning that the acting executive officer of U. S. Coast Guard Air Station City had conversed freely with civilians about the Plaintiff's treatment plans, thus compromising the Plaintiff's privacy of medical information, the Plaintiff requested not to go to military inpatient alcohol rehabilitation treatment, and requested to be able to see a civilian counselor on his own. 5.That the Plaintiff was then sent by the command to be evaluated by a Navy psychiatrist at U. S. Naval Hospital Portsmouth, Virginia, who reported the Plaintiff to be normal, fit for flying, and likely to have a bad reaction to inpatient treatment. 6. That in spite of this evaluation by the Navy psychiatrist, the command sent the Plaintiff involuntarily to inpatient alcohol rehabilitation treatment at U. S. Naval Hospital Millington, Tennessee on December 23, 1985. 7. That the Plaintiff spent Christmas week, 1985 observing and being subjected to intense, humiliating, and intimidating verbal abuse insisting that the Plaintiff " believe " in Alcoholics Anonymous principles and that the Plaintiff " believe " that the Plaintiff had the " disease " of alcoholism. That these intimidating sessions took place in a room where a large poster giving numerous references to " God " hung conspicuously on the wall. That the Plaintiff was subjected to mandatory Alcoholics Anonymous meetings that opened with all present reciting, in unison, Serenity Prayer and closed with all present standing in a circle, holding hands and reciting, in unison, the Lord's Prayer. 8. That the Plaintiff observed the treatment to be based on coerced spirituality and beliefs in religious principles that were inconsistent with the Plaintiff's own religious beliefs, especially the torturous lifelong stigmatization of self and others, which is contrary to the teachings of the Plaintiff's own God and the instructions of ch. 6, vs. 5-9 of the Holy Bible from the Plaintiff's own God. 9. That on or about the sixth day of treatment the Plaintiff told one of the staff members that the Plaintiff did not believe the Plaintiff had the disease of alcoholism and that the Plaintiff wanted out of the program. 10. That on December 31, 1985 the Plaintiff was called into a staff office where the entire staff (five people) surrounded the Plaintiff in a semicircle, slammed books on a desk, yelled at the Plaintiff, told the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff's deceased father who did not drink was a " dry alcoholic " , and in an intensely coercive pre-Miranda style setting, demanded that the Plaintiff profess " belief " that the Plaintiff had the disease of alcoholism, which the Plaintiff refused to profess. That the Plaintiff stated that if religion was the basis of the treatment, the Plaintiff would be better off placing himself in an environment of the Plaintiff's own religion as the Plaintiff had done previously while attending graduate school at a university sponsored by the Plaintiff's own religion. That the staff responded to this remark by the Plaintiff by shouting at the Plaintiff with more abusive language and one staff member stating that she had tried that, and it did not work for her and that " their " religious program was the only way to solve the Plaintiff's problem. That during this bizarrely abusive session, one of the counselors who, because he was on leave during the entire week had never even met the Plaintiff, continued to shout in a loud voice, " You are a sick man, Mr. Perkins, you are a sick man. " 11. That this interrogation session was an inquisition of the Plaintiff's " beliefs " rather than his actions, the Plaintiff having already confessed to periodic abuse of alcohol. 12. That the Plaintiff was discharged from treatment on December 31, 1985 and that the follow-up reports stated that the Plaintiff had failed to cooperate in treatment. 13. That shortly after the Plaintiff's return to his duty station the Plaintiff had a conference at the Fifth Coast Guard District office in Portsmouth, Virginia with the district alcohol and drug abuse representative, a senior chief petty officer, and that this conference was attended also by a civilian co-worker of the senior chief. That the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff did not want to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. That the senior chief and the civilian became quite indignant, and in a session, although not nearly as intimidating and abusive as the previously mentioned session on December 31, stated that these religious activities would be mandatory. That the senior chief stated that he knew from personal experience from being a member of Alcoholics Anonymous that " his " religious program was the only way to solve the Plaintiff's problem. 14. That the Plaintiff was then forced against his will to swallow daily the dangerously toxic and life threatening chemical, disulfiram, but was not told by any representative of the Coast Guard that any dangerous risks were associated with the ingestion of this chemical. That Coast Guard regulations require that this information concerning possible side effects of the drug be presented to the patient by a physician. 15. That in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution [ vs. Laird-466 F.2d 283, 285 (1972)], the Plaintiff was ordered to attend three (3) Alcoholics Anonymous meetings per week where religious dogma and prescribed prayer were part of the program. That as proof of attendance at these religious meetings at various churches and civic buildings, the Plaintiff was required to submit to the command slips of paper signed by Alcoholics " Anonymous " members of the civilian community, thus compromising the religious privacy of the civilian community. That the prescribed prayers at these meetings consisted of each meeting opening with all present reciting in unison the Serenity Prayer, and each meeting closing with all present standing in a circle holding hands and reciting in unison the Lord's Prayer. That the Lord's Prayer is a sectarian prayer of sacred text [Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, (1963)]. That prayer is a religious exercise/activity, and " at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which 'establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so'. " This is a fundamental limitation " imposed by the Establishment Clause. " [Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)]. That this coercion also violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment [Abington, 374 U.S. at 223.] That this coercion also violates the instructions of Jesus Christ, the Plaintiff's Lord and Savior ( ch. 6, vs. 5-9 of the Holy Bible). That to determine whether the Establish Clause has been violated, the Supreme Court applies a three-part test (the Lemon Test) set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). That under this test, to satisfy the Establishment Clause a governmental practice must (1) reflect a clearly secular purpose; (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion. That the Coast Guard clearly failed to satisfy parts (2) and (3) of the Lemon Test. That excessive government entanglement with religion is clearly reflected by the Coast Guard's policy to coerce some of its members to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, a voluntary organization of people in the civilian community who gather and pray together, many of whom disapprove of others being coerced to join them, and especially by the Coast Guard's policy to require its members to return the signed names of members of Alcoholics " Anonymous " to the command. That the Coast Guard's practice also serves to advance and inhibit religion in this case. That by requiring a member to attend and/or participate in these meetings, where the Lord's Prayer is recited in unison by all, the Coast Guard's practice serves to advance religion, the Lord's Prayer being a Christian prayer from the New Testament of the Holy Bible, which refers to prophesy unique to the Christian faith. That the Coast Guard's practice also serves to inhibit religion, because there are Christians like myself who believe that the words of ch. 6, vs. 5-9 truly reflect the sacred message given by Jesus to the people as He stood on the mountain. 16. That the mandatory attendance at these religious meetings was especially torturous to the spirit and soul of the Plaintiff, since this duty station was in City, North Carolina, the town where the Plaintiff had grown from infancy to adulthood, and where the Plaintiff's parents had introduced the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff's own God, and together they worshiped their own God in their own way and at their own chosen place of worship. 17. That during the nine month period between the Plaintiff's discharge from treatment and discharge from the Coast Guard, all operational capacitations of the Plaintiff, including flight status, security clearance, and operational watches were terminated. (The plaintiffs of vs. Laird were also persecuted severely by their Academy staff until their attorney gained a restraining order to prevent such persecution). 18. That on September 15, 1986 the Plaintiff was discharged from active duty in the United States Coast Guard his fitness reports reflecting, of course, that the Plaintiff had done no right and, of course, that the Coast Guard had done no wrong. 19. That the religious based beliefs that the Plaintiff refused to proclaim and yet the Defendant was in such powerful alignment with, are considered by today's experts who study and research the field of substance abuse with reason, objectivity, scientific method and without religious prejudice, to be erroneous. 20. That as Mr. Jefferson stated so many times that it would if it were allowed to, error is on the flee. Yet the Plaintiff has been ruthlessly stigmatized and incapacitated from his government position for not allowing the Defendant to pursue its happiness by tyrannizing over the mind and beliefs of the Plaintiff with the religiously aligned convictions of the Defendant. 21. That " Soon Mrs. Ford was the famed founder of the prestigious Betty Ford Center, a lofty perch from which, at last, she could look down on people as sickos. " , Szasz, Our Right to Drugs: The Case for a Free Market, p.88. 22. That " As noted in the first chapter, in 1963 the Supreme Court declared that a law does not violate the principle of church-state separation if its purpose and primary effect are secular. Since then practically every effort to introduce religion in the public school or to get public funds for church schools has been accompanied by a recitation of 'purpose and primary effect' as if it were a verbal talisman whose mere incantation was sufficient to exorcise the ghost of unconstitutionality. The reductio ad absurdum of the purpose effect test is to be found in the 1972 case of Laird v. . One would assume that in the United States no one could be forced to go to church. At least four times within the past 25 years the Supreme Court has said so. Nor is this tradition of recent vintage; it is more than three centuries old, dating back to a letter, written in 1654 by to the people of the Town of Providence, in which he said: There goes many a ship to sea, with many hundred souls in one ship, whose weal and woe is common, and is a true picture of a commonwealth, or a human combination or society. It hath fallen out sometimes, that both papists and protestants, Jews and Turks, may be embarked in one ship; upon which supposal I affirm, that all the liberty of conscience, that ever I pleaded for, turns upon these two hinges--that none of the papists, protestants, Jews, or Turks be forced to come to the ship's prayers or worship, if they practice any. I further add, that I never denied, that notwithstanding this liberty, the commander of this ship ought to command the ship's course, yea, and also command that justice, peace and sobriety, be kept and practiced both among the seamen and all the passengers. " Leo Pheffer God, Caesar, and the Constitution p. 163 23. That " Had not the Roman government permitted free inquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free inquiry been indulged at the era of the Reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. " , Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia. 24. That " The mental health system is a well-oiled machine that destroys the hopes and dreams of millions of vulnerable souls, wreaks havoc on their bodies, and inducts them into becoming chronic mental patients. " , Seth Farber, Madness, Heresy, and the Rumor of Angels: The Revolt Against the Mental Health System, p.110. (Enclosure 1) 25. That " Psychiatric drugs and electroshock are spreading an epidemic of permanent brain damage. " , Breggin, Toxic Psychiatry, dust jacket. 26. That " What also remains unmentioned in debates on drug legalization is that all loyal liberal-despotic psychiatrists--Grinspoon among them--believe in forcing some of the most toxic drugs in our pharmacopoeia down the throats of the most helpless people in the country, rationalizing coercive drugging as the 'drug treatment of psychotics.' Grinspoon never suggests a harmfulness tax for Haldol. " , Szasz, Our Right to Drugs: The Case for a Free Market, p.108. 27. That " The most serious threat to good government and freedom in America is not posed by evil-minded men and women. It is posed by legislative and judicial activists and other sincere persons of the best intentions, who are bent on remaking America in the image of their own thinking. They lack faith in the capacity of people to be the masters of their own fates, and the captains of their own souls, and insist that government assume the task of controlling their thoughts and managing their lives. " Senator Sam J. Ervin Jr., Preserving the Constitution, p.169. 28. That " Typical of the utter fraudulence of the Clinton health-care plan is the line about 'asking everyone to pay his fair share.' Government is not about 'asking.' It is about telling--and about punishing those who do not obey. " , Sowell, editorial, The Virginian Pilot, June 10, 1994. (Enclosure 2) 29. That " The new Nero will approach us with the silky manners of a doctor. " , C.S. . SECOND CLAIM 1. That the Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States of America and has been so continuously since his birth on January 13, 1949 at New London, Connecticut. 2. That a position as officer in the United States Coast Guard is an office and/or public trust in the context of the Religious Test Clause of Article. VI, Section 3 of the United States Constitution. 3. That alcohol rehabilitation treatment in the United States Navy/Coast Guard was at the time of the Plaintiff's discharge from active duty, based on the coerced beliefs and practices of the spiritual, religious, and dogmatic principles of the Alcoholics Anonymous program including mandatory attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings which opened with all present reciting, in unison, the Serenity Prayer, and closed with all present standing in a circle and reciting, in unison, the Lord's Prayer. 4. That the United States Coast Guard's policy of discharge for not completing such treatment as described above is in violation of the Religious Test Clause of Article. VI, Section 3 of the United States Constitution ( V. Laird, at 293, footnote 63). 5. That the Plaintiff was subjected to and refused such Religious Test and therefore was consequently discharged from active duty. WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays that: 1. He be placed on the permanent retired list of the United States Coast Guard and enjoy all benefits including full retirement pay for the amount due one retired at the rank of Lieutenant (03). 2. He be granted in lump sum payment back retirement pay for the above stated rank from September 15, 1986 to the date that he receives his first regular retirement check. 3. He be awarded such other relief as the Court deems just. This the 12th day of September 1994 ______________________________ Tommy G. Perkins 215 Harrell Street City, NC 27909 ______________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 1999 Report Share Posted February 22, 1999 At 03:54 PM 2/22/99 PST, you wrote: > June 6, 1994 <snipped> Tommy, I really enjoy reading this and I keep them all. I hope you are successful, or were (not sure if this was actually resolved yet). Joe Berenbaum ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.