########### Ave.
                                Berkeley, CA 94707
                                April 23, 1997

Anthony J. Adams, LOpt, PhD, Dean
School of Optometry
Berkeley, CA 94720


Dear Dr. Adams:

I have scheduled a lawsuit against Dr. Edward J. Revelli,
Director of the Optometry Clinic of your school, and other
appropriate parties, to be filed in approximately two weeks.  I
have been in contact with your office while you were in China,
requesting through Richard there, a short conference with you, on
your return, for the purpose of possibly averting the need for
this suit.  Today he informs me that, solely on the basis of Dr.
Revelli's short letter to me on the matter to be subject of the
suit, you have rejected any such conference and wholly support
his position on the matter.  I write this letter 1) to set before
you some true facts and the scenario of the issue between us
corresponding to some false facts and implications Dr. Revelli
has included in the letter of his you reviewed, and 2) to assert
my resolved intention to pursue in the courts this public-
interest issue based on "professionally" impudent, egoistic
expediency, grossly exercised in defiance of competent eyecare
and professional and scientific integrity -- unless it can be
resolved within the above time limit.

First, I would like to comment that, on being tested by blue-on-
yellow perimetry, in your laboratory in September of 1993, I was
quite impressed with the scientific demeanor there, as opposed to
demeanors of some earlier and later activities of others at the
Optometry School I have observed.  I also noted, while waiting in
your office, that the range of books on your shelves indicated an
excellent and diverse background you must have in your areas of
physical science (physiological optics) and psychophysics.  I
thus must believe that, at least at that time, you had a great
deal of scientific integrity.  I am told you still are in close
touch with research in your lab.  Because you are in line of
authority over Dr. Revelli (and logically, therefore, in line of
liability in any legal action), because I had, at that earlier
date observed your scientific integrity -- and because the
documented and witnessed facts of my issue with Dr. Revelli defy
such integrity, as well as optometric professional integrity -- I
had hoped to explore in person your views on this issue, before
being forced to proceed litigiously.

As to Dr. Revelli's letter to me on your reading it, I would've
thought you might notice its demeaning nature (first-name
salutation and twice in direct address at the beginning of
sentences, together with "In the interest of your. . ."), and
want therefore to get some direct input from the other party to
the issue.  The deviance from reality present in Dr. Revelli's
letter falls into two categories:  1) the post-facto nature of
his refusal of my prescription on the basis of my having glaucoma
-- because of its true basis in his immediate annoyance by my
attempts to correct the already issued prescription, and 2) his
claim of a physical interaction between any appropriate treatment
of my glaucoma and my refractive needs.

The attached letter of mine in response to his letter of 4-16-97
to me, which you read, gives the facts of '1)'.  The fallacy of
'2)' is also discussed there, based on the fact that, after Lions
Eye Clinic at Cal Pacific had casually stuck a POAG label on my
nerve-head defects, Dr. James D. Brandt at UCD, in December of
1989, put some effort into diagnosing my problem as chronic
angle-closure glaucoma, whereafter, on a later date, Lions Eye so
regarded it.  You must note that my pressures are usually in the
low 20s or lower and certainly not up where a major eye procedure
would change my refractive requirements.  Nothing more extensive
than preventive laser iridotomy of my nondefective eye has ever
been recommended by any ophthalmologist.  Such a procedure, you
will agree, would not bring about a requirement of a different
prescription than what is presently correct for me.  The lack of
any liability incurred by dispensing eyeglasses to me per the
instant prescription from your clinic, as signed off by a
consulting optometrist or as it might be modified over any
optometrist's signature, is also discussed in my attached letter
to Dr. Revelli.

However, you should note that I refused, some years ago, to HAVE
the contrast capability of my good eye damaged by such
mutilation, based on 1) the fact that such perforation brought
about absolutely no change, when done in my bad eye, to either
that eye's IOP or the progression of its nerve damage; the
obvious fact that the atrophy to the nerve head of my left eye is
mechanistically associated with my nasal mucosal atrophy that is
restricted almost entirely to my left naris; and 3) the fact
that, while the vision loss in my left eye was first noticed 9
years ago, absolutely no vision loss has been detected in my
other eye to date, including by blue-on-yellow perimetry in your
lab in 1993.  I certainly have the right to make such a medical
decision without loss of my right to obtain professional
optometric refraction and eyeglasses produced therefrom, whether
it be *I* who pay for these or an informed *charity*, as in the
instant case.  I enclose copies of documents from my medical
records at both Lions Eye and UCD, to establish the facts I
present here.

Also, copies of documents from the records of your school's
clinic are enclosed here to establish that it has provided
prescriptions at least twice besides in the present instance,
after acknowledgement by it of glaucoma in one of my eyes, and
after medical referral had been suggested to me.

As noted in my letter to Dr. Revelli, I am not withholding,
during the next two weeks, my discussion of this travesty of his
from its dissemination to various local individuals,
organizations and media and on the Internet, because it is an
important public issue of discrimination by the State university
system.  Also, I will be exploring what legal talent is available
to the issue in any respect.  Furthermore, there exist other
issues between the Optometry Clinic and the Berkeley community
that need resolution in the community's interest, which I am
looking into currently and will be pursuing in addition and
irrespective of the resolution of this one -- after having been
spurred by this crude act of Dr. Revelli.  It might be noted
that, had optometric interests not been permitted the legislation
of California Business and Professions Code Section 3042 -- which
prohibits anyone other than an OD or MD, including a prospective
end user or a charity, from obtaining any prescription lens
(which is NOT a dangerous drug or device), from a supplier --
Sight Saver could be supplying far more unimaginative spectacles
to the needy, ones prescribable by a user-friendly combination
objective-subjective autorefractor, located outside the armspan
of any optometrist.

It is particularly ironic that, in the instant absurd case, which
has aroused such a stink, only small amounts of prism were sought
to be added to an existing prescription, and in this case, the
prospective end user was able to more accurately measure these
values, outside any optometric parlor, than was the reneging
optometric operation.

Finally, I will note that I am copying this communication,
together with the documents attached hereto, to UC General
Counsel James Holst, with whom I have spoken earlier, in order to
make it clear to all who should become involved in this matter
that I have genuinely attempted to resolve it out of court.  I
will also communicate some on this matter with the Chancellor's
Office and with various officers of the Northern California
Council of Lions Clubs.  I have long noted that UCB has kept a
core of ultraconservatives that still believe the way to
negotiate is to keep issues in the dark, attempting to railroad
them through.  The last issue handled this way, that I recall,
was the LBNL Strawberry Canyon waste-storage expansion.  This
tactic of theirs, in that case, backfired on them.  They cannot
keep hidden this and the other issues related to the Optometry
Clinic, which I am bringing to the attention of the media.

Should you be interested in talking to me personally, after
reconciling some of the facts, either as presented here or found
elsewhere, on the instant discrimination issue, I remain
interested in discussing them within the two-week period before
my legal filing of the matter.


                                Raymond A. Chamberlin