becomes the law breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself: it invites anarchy," Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (dissenting)(1928).* * * * * * * * * *
QUESTION: After much publicity by mid-April 2000, why didn’t the Officials cite that the asbestos scandals were/are pertinent to all victims’ compensation and medical benefit claims under: (1) the EEOICPA of 2000; (2) the “Black Lung Benefits Act" of 1972; and (3) the “RECA” of 1990?
(EXHIBIT 3).
QUESTION: Why didn’t the Officials declare that the vast majority of the energy employees are, also, a class of “Special Exposure Cohorts” whose deteriorating health and eventual death was affected by their chronic exposure to the asbestos toxins?
After nearly five years have elapsed since the enactment of the EEOICPA, the Officials seem incapable of and/or unwilling to enforce their intent. The majority of the Officials said their intent was to proceed to enforce US Codes Title 42 USC § 7384 and 42 USC § 7385 and all subtitles under Public Law 106-398 and Public Law 108-375 Subtitle E. Heretofore, the delegated “department employees” were/are allowed to interpret the State and Federal laws as they see fit.
After decades of their “no harm done” reflections, the unqualified department employees are oriented to believe they are the ultimate “triers of fact” and the final “adjudicators.” This preposterous assumption trends to deny tens of thousands of American citizens their human and civil rights.
The EEOICPA Subtitle E Amendment of October 2004, finally acknowledges the irreparable damage caused by exposure to the deadly asbestos and/or asbestos-containing toxins — residual contamination.
See URL internet location:
This matter of fact should have assusred that thousands of EEOICPA claimants were/are compensated under the "Special Exposure Cohort" provisions without having to qualify. For instance, as the asbestos scandal inquires increase, Teresa Hammer, a novice Richland, Washington USDOL resource center employee, seems to be oriented to inform the “clients” that the asbestos focus was automatically factored into their dose reconstruction by the USHHS employees. This arbitrary statement represents a brazen assumption by this USDOL employee. For this reason, I have structured a Freedom of Information Act (F.O.I.A) form that I will share as a ways and means to
