By AuxBeacon News Reader
[Editor’s Note: Plaintiff was CAP Capt Aric C. Hall from Tyler Composite Squadron in Texas Wing. Hall originally reported cadet protection policy violations and theft through the chain of command. As a result, he was terminated. The MARB (MARP) appeal board terminated his membership to bury his complaint. Later, Hall tried to get help from the USAF and the CAP Board of Governors, but was met with resistance. Hall sued the CAP in 2005 and 2008 for wrong termination and defamation. This is a good example of what occurs during a termination and what many whistleblowers in the CAP have endured.]
Plaintiff has exhausted every internal and governmental oversight avenue for restoring
himself and ending the criminal and tortuous activities of Civil Air Patrol (CAP). It is apparent that each officer, governor, agent, or Air Force (USAF) commander over CAP will not follow law, regulation, policy, or agreement. As such, the necessary objective of this action is to forever rectify the wrongdoing and prevent it from ever occurring again.
The officers and agents of CAP, and other related actors, engaged in complex and organized criminal activities, tortuous activities, and breaches of implied contract (company policy) against plaintiff. This culminated in the termination of plaintiff from CAP, involving extensive violations of company policy. The actions also included multiple acts of defamation. The torts of fraud and negligence are also satisfied, where each agent and officer of the corporation failed to fulfill their duties to plaintiff and instead upheld violations of policy and violations of duty to plaintiff committed by other actors. The Inspector General (IG) investigations, command investigations, appeal board, Membership Action Review Board (MARB), each corporate board, the Board of Governors (BoG), and the members of the USAF chain of command all violated their duties, responsibilities of their positions, and the implied contract, upholding the wrongful acts of other defendants and violating the rights and duties owed to plaintiff.
Plaintiff reported or forwarded extensive violations of company policy, criminal law, resulting cover-up investigations, and other matters as was required of CAP members. Plaintiff reported such violations IAW CAP policy, to the persons required by CAP policy and the CAP-USAF Statement of Work. Arguably, not reporting some allegations may have made plaintiff an accessory to any criminal wrongdoing. Plaintiff was terminated and otherwise retaliated against for doing as required. To-date, CAP and the associated defendants have yet to provide a justification for termination, per CAP policy. Several supposed justifications were provided on various dates that were inconsistent, slanderous, and had no basis as justifications.