Here's an idea for the "doubting Thomas's". Why don't you chip in $1 to $5 for the campaign, not expecting any returns, except the good probability that these kits will be available in the future for reduced cost since I will be using my own laser cutter, and spread the word around to all that you know, and have them spread the word around, and so on and so on (networking), so that it will be a successful campaign and I can get things going? If you lose $1 to $5 and, for some reason I have to do ANOTHER campaign to get the additional funding that I need, and that one fails also, you are only out $1 to $5. If 3,000 people chip in $5 that's $15,000 to get it going. Even if it doesn't ultimately succeed, then I can pay everyone back with my proceeds from the action against the FAA (which will include the last 10.5 years of salary at an average of $120,000 per year, as if an employee resigns BECAUSE OF being cheated it is "constructive discharge", same as wrongful termination), for cheating me out of $20,700 per year given to other IDENTICAL employees (which our attorney failed to tell the Judges about, however, even one Judge in the oral arguments said, "Are you telling me that there are identical employees in the same control tower getting different rates of pay?", where one of the other Judges responded with, "They wouldn't be here if that were not the case". They then used IDIOTIC reasoning to dismiss the case, however, that only concerned the SECONDARY slap in the face committed against us, how pay was set AFTER arriving at the new facilities, where it has been discovered that DURING our 14-month delay in moving we were given smaller pay raises, and on two occasions NO pay raise, than/that we would have been given if we had moved on time, so illegally putting us at the BOTTOM of the new pay band upon arriving at the new facilities was, "to add insult to injury". The INITIAL injustice has NOT gone through court (which giving us RETROACTIVE higher-percentage raises would correct the INITIAL injustice and AUTOMATICALLY correct the SECONDARY injustice and put our pay at the correct level at the new facilities WITHOUT being contrary to any court ruling), so the FAA Administrator can order Human Resources to pay us as if we moved AS SCHEDULED, and if that had been done I would now be in Seattle making $140,000 per year (actually I would be retired with a retirement income of around $75,000 per year, retiring last November as my mandatory retirement age was reached (56), at that time making $140,000 per year).
I can email you a copy of the MP3 file of the 45 minute oral arguments that you can listen to it yourself, just give me your email address at
[email protected], or you can go to the website for the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and go to "oral arguments" and put in "Ted Brodowy v. U.S." case number 2006-5113. The MP3 oral arguments should still be available and you can listen as it is streamed to you. Very interesting example of "confusion in government". I am about to send a message to the FAA Administrator to the effect of: It is AGAINST THE LAW, and AGAINST FAA PERSONNEL REGULATIONS to apply DIFFERENT pay-setting procedures to the Air Traffic Controllers in the fourth year of the program to contract out control towers at small airports, where FAA controllers moved to higher-level facilities and were replaced by contract controllers, than the pay-setting procedures that were applied to those who moved in the first three years of the program". Section 2301(b)(2) and (b)(8), Title 5, U.S.C., which has been incorporated into the FAA Personnel Management System WORD-FOR-WORD, state, "Employees should be given fair and EQUITABLE treatment in all aspects of personnel management.......", and "Employees should be protected against ARBITRARY action".