Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: All; y'all; et al

One of my favorite cosmologists, besides of course our very own FReepers Betty Boop & Alamo Girl, is D. Paul LaViolette

SubQuantum Kinetics, wide ranging unifying cosmology theory by Dr. Paul LaViolette
THE STARBURST FOUNDATION ^ | January 2007 | Dr. Paul LaViolette;q=1
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:00:43 PM by Kevmo

6 posted on 06/12/2009 11:53:18 PM PDT by Kevmo (So America gets what America deserves - the destruction of its Constitution. ~Leo Donofrio, 6/1/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: All; y'all; et al

Hi folks.

In a previous thread

I had posted this stuff but it looks so intricate that it needs its own thread.

Dr. LaViolette is kinda wacky & strange, maybe like Einstein would have been if he had not gained recognition for his theory. He was terminated from the US Patent office because he “believed in” Cold Fusion.

Cold fusion confusion the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s incredible interpretation of religion in LaViolette v. Daley
Army Lawyer, March, 2002 by Drew A. SwankIs cold fusion (1) the equivalent of Catholicism? Is believing in extraterrestrials the same as being an Episcopalian? In the recent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decision of LaViolette v. Daley, (2) the EEOC held that the complainant’s unusual beliefs regarding cold fusion, cryptic messages from extraterrestrials, and other “scientific” beliefs are entitled to the same protection in the workplace from discrimination as religious beliefs. (3) This note, by examining the facts of the case, the relevant statutes, agency regulations, and case law, will demonstrate that the EEOC’s ruling has impermissibly expanded the definition of “religion” to the point that it has created a new cause of actionable discrimination—something the EEOC has neither the power nor the authority to do.


Paul LaViolette had been a patent examiner with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) until he was fired on 9 April 1999. (4) On 28 June 1999, LaViolette filed a formal complaint of discrimination, alleging that the PTO fired and refused to rehire him based upon his “unconventional beliefs about cold fusion and other technologies.” (5) The Department of Commerce, of which the PTO is part, dismissed LaViolette’s complaint on 13 September 1999, for failure to state a claim within the purview of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (6)

LaViolette appealed the dismissal, arguing that “`discrimination against a person on account of his beliefs is the essence of discrimination on the basis of religion.’ Therefore, he contends, his scientific beliefs in cold fusion are protected.” (7) The EEOC reversed the agency’s dismissal of his complaint and remanded it for further processing. (8) While an agency must dismiss a complaint of discrimination that fails to state a claim, (9) here the EEOC held:

In determining which beliefs are protected under Title VII, the Supreme
Court has held that the test is whether the belief professed is sincerely
held and whether it is, in his own scheme of things, religious....
Moreover, in defining religious beliefs, our guidelines note that “the fact
that no religious group espouses such beliefs ... will not determine
whether the belief is a religious belief of the employee ...

In the instant case, complainant argues that his unconventional beliefs
about cold fusion and other technologies should be viewed as a religion and
therefore protected. Complainant claims he was terminated and denied the
opportunity to be rehired because of religion, which embodies his cold
fusion beliefs. Therefore, under the applicable law noted above, we find
that the agency improperly dismissed complainant’s claim of discrimination
for failure to state a claim. (10)
While the EEOC subsequently stated that it did not determine the validity of LaViolette’s complaint, (11) by allowing the case to go forward, it has extended Title VII protection to scientific beliefs. In doing so, the EEOC not only misapplied its own regulations, but also ignored the statutes and case law that govern it and exceeded its statutory mandate as well.


The ultimate question presented by LaViolette’s complaint is whether his scientific beliefs deserve the same protection from discrimination as another’s religious beliefs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (12) provides that it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” (13) It defines religion to “include all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” (14) Title VII has been interpreted “to protect against requirements of religious conformity and as such protects those who refuse to hold, as well as those who hold, specific religious beliefs.” (15)

The EEOC, responsible for enforcing Title VII, (16) is required by its own regulations to adopt Title VII’s definition of religion. (17) As Title VII’s definition of religion is circular (religion includes all aspects of religious observance and practice), (18) the EEOC’s regulation further adds that

[i]n most cases whether or not a practice or belief is religious is not at
issue. However, in those cases in which the issue does exist, the
Commission will define religious practices to include moral or ethical
beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the
strength of traditional religious views. This standard was developed in
United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) and Welsh v. United States,
398 U.S. 333 (1970). The Commission has consistently applied this standard
in its decisions. The fact that no religious group espouses such beliefs or
the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes to
belong may not accept such a belief will not determine whether the belief
is a religious belief of the employee or prospective employee. The phrase
“religious practice” as used in these Guidelines includes both religious
observances and practices, as stated in section 701(j), 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j).

7 posted on 06/12/2009 11:55:28 PM PDT by Kevmo (So America gets what America deserves - the destruction of its Constitution. ~Leo Donofrio, 6/1/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: All; y'all; et al; SunkenCiv

And that brings us round to today, where I’ve discovered that I and others have the opportunity to put our money where our mouths are on Cold Fusion, possibly being among the first to make money from it.

Check out the contract at Intrade for Cold Fusion. I’m putting my money where my mouth is and have bid 500 contracts at $5.50, so if anyone thinks I’m a fool they can make a bunch of money from me. Just buy the contracts.

Dr Yoshiaki Arata’s Cold Fusion Experiment

Dr Arata’s experiment to be replicated in peer-reviewed scientific journal on/before 31 Dec 2009 M Trade

Bid Ask Last Vol Chge
5.5 98.5 23.0 139 0

The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics
Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:50:26 PM · by Kevmo · 76 replies · 854+ views
Suppressed Science.Net ^ | 12/06/08 |

The End of Snide Remarks Against Cold Fusion
Friday, June 05, 2009 5:56:08 PM · by Kevmo · 69 replies · 926+ views
Free Republic, and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | kevmo, et al

8 posted on 06/12/2009 11:59:24 PM PDT by Kevmo (So America gets what America deserves - the destruction of its Constitution. ~Leo Donofrio, 6/1/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson